ORDER
G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President
1. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, JDR, for the respondent-Collector.
2. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass. It is whether poster paper manufactured by the appellants was, during the material time (effective 17-3-85) chargeable to excise duty under Sl. No. 1(iii) of Central Excise Notification No. 45/85, dated 17-3-85 (as claimed by the appellants) or under Sl. No. 6 as held by the Collector (Appeals).
3. It is not in dispute that poster paper is used for printing. This fact has been admitted in the impugned order but the objection of the Collector (Appeals) is that it is used only for printing of posters for propaganda, advertisements, etc., and that it is neither suitable nor usually used for other printing works. The other objection is that poster paper is used only for printing whereas, to earn the benefit of the lower rate of duty under Sl. No. 1(iii) of notification, it should not be only a printing paper but also a writing paper.
4. The above interpretation of the notification, in our view, is wholly erroneous. The term “printing and writing paper used in the notification clearly implies printing paper on the one hand and writing paper on the other hand. If any variety of paper is suitable for both printing and writing, obviously it would be printing and writing paper. However, it does not follow that a paper which is used only for printing and not also for writing will not fall within the ambit of the expression “printing and writing paper”.
5. Serial Number 1 of the notification reads as follows :-
“Printing and writing paper –
(i) Coated paper (ii) of a substance not exceeding 25 gms. per square metre. (iii)Others". Serial Number 6 reads :- "Paper and Paperboards other than those specified in Serial Numbers 1 to 5".
The question of classification of printing paper under Sl. No. 6 would not arise unless the paper is ruled out of the scope of Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 of these Sl. Nos. 2 to 5 are not relevant. Since poster paper does not fall within (i) nor is it any one’s case that it falls under (ii) of Sl. No. 1, it evidently falls under Sl. No. (iii). In the above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
6. The Collector has filed a cross-objection. The impugned order is in
favour of the Revenue and the relief claimed in the so called cross-objection is
that the appeal should be dismissed. In view of the impugned order being in
favour of the Revenue, there was no cause for filing the cross-objection which is
dismissed as not maintainable.