MODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 25-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: ss. 35-L & 36(2)/Excise Tariff, 
Item No. 17(2)-Excise duty-Effect of Notification No. 68176 dated 
16.3.1976--Manufacture of flock paper-Process of screen printing 
carried on-Benefit of Notification-Whether available. 
... 
The Notification No. 68/76 dated March 16, 1976 issued by the 
Central Government exempted converted types of papers commonly 
known as imitation flint papers obtained by one side of paper being 
subjected to printing of colour irrespective of the fact whether or not 
such paper is subsequently varnished or glazed by chemicals or embos-
D sed, and falling under item 17(t) of Excise Tarrif, if it was proved that ')" 
the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid in respect of the 
paper used in their manufacture. 
The appellant registered as small scale industry, which buys white 
E paper on which duty had already been paid and manufactures flockJoc' 
paper out of it by a manual process, sought exemption from payment of 
~ 
duty under the aforesaid notification. His claim was rejected by the 
Assistant Collector. That order was set aside by the Appellate Collector 
who took the view that the wording of the notification showed that as r 
long as the one side of the paper has been printed with the colour 
F whatever other process is undertaken of further polishing or glazing 
etc. is immaterial, and that in this case the first operation of printing of 
one side of the paper with colour has been established. Thereafter the 
matter went before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate 
Tribunal under s. 36(2) of the Salt Act, 1944, which found that printing 
is not only word printing, it .extends to numerous other processes-I 
G whereby a surface is coated or coloured or is given an imprint, to repre-
sent, reproduce, cover, decorate etc. and it is not just ink that is used 
for printing. Since in its opinion in the instant case, there was no colour 
printing it set aside the Appellate order. 
Allowing the appeal under s. 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt 
H Act, 1942, the Court, 
1068 
MODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPN. v. C.C.E. (MISRA, l.] 
1069 
HELD: The process carried on by the appellant is covered by the 
A 
Notification No. 68/76 dated March 16, 1976 and it is, therefore, not 
liable to pay any duty. [1074G] 
The purpose of the notification is that the paper which would have 
-f otherwise fallen under Item 17(2) of Excise Tariff would, if covered by 
the notification, become exempt from duty. The words used therein 
B 
-
make it clear that irrespective of the fact whether or not such paper is 
T 
snbsequently varnished or glazed by chemicals or embossed, it would be 
entitled to the benefit of the notification. The word 'subsequently' 
makes it clear that the process need not be simultaneous. The Tribunal 
.._ 
failed to notice this aspect. [1073FG, 1074F] 
The Tribunal rightly indicated that printing did not require ink 
and many other processes would also be covered by the term printing. 
The appellant has been pleading from the very beginning that the 
process carried on by it consists of a colour printing on one side of 
the paper. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that the 
c 
~ appellant's process is to paste one side of the paper with adhesive mate-
D 
rial. Whether adhesive material is mixed to colour or colour is mixed 
with adhesive does not make any difference so long as a process of 
screen printing is carried on to colour the paper on one side. The fact 
of screen printing is accepted by respondents and that has been the 
case of the appellant. The Appellate Collector was, therefore, right 
'1ll in holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the noti-
E 
-
fication. [1074DE, 10710] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4534 
'( of 1984. 
From the Order No. C-496 dated 23.7.1984 of the Customs, 
F 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal 
No. 1117of1980-(C). 
Harish N. Salve, Ravinder Narain, P.K. Ram and D.N. Mishra 
~·for the Appellant. 
Govind Das, Mrs. Sushma Suri and R.P. Srivastava for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
RANG AN A TH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section 35-L of the H 
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
) 
A 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.