ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 16,97,020.88 on 3063068 Kgs. of paper cleared at Nil rate of duty, confirming duty demand of Rs. 1,52,421.62 on 263513.40 Kgs. of kraft paper seized with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants herein. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the kraft paper and printing and writing paper manufactured and cleared during the period 1-5-1983 to 1-12-1985 and the kraft paper seized and provisionally released on 11-12-1985 on execution of bond and furnishing of bank guarantee, did not contain 75% or more by weight of pulp made from bagasse in terms of Notification 191/80 dated 9-12-1980 as amended (in respect of printing and writing paper) and Notification 142/81 dated 8-7-1981 as amended (in respect of kraft paper) and, therefore, were not entitled to be cleared at nil rate of duty.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants from 26-11-1985 to 1-12-1985 and found that the appellants were not maintaining any records to establish that they were manufacturing paper containing 75% or more by weight of pulp made from bagasse. Statements of Shri K.K. Jhunjhunwala, Managing Director and Shri S.K. Bhowmik, Pulp Mill Incharge and Shri R.B. Pathak, Sales Manager and others were recorded in which they deposed inter alia that no records were being maintained by the factory, either statutory or private, for control over the quality and production of paper made from bagasse pulp with admixture of other pulps. Samples were also tested in the factory by Shri S.K. Bhowmik and by the technologists of another Paper Mill viz. M/s. Abhudaya Paper Mills, Faizabad and the results thereof revealed that the paper contained less than 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse. From the figures contained in one current beater register, it was seen that bagasse and jute ratio was in the proportion of 50:50. The Form IV register had been entered only up to the month of October, 1985. Calculation of stock of jute and bagasse on the consumption rate of the previous months which were adjusted in November, 1985 showed large variation. The examination of the raw material records indicated that bagasse when received was entered in the private records as well as in Form IV register in excess of what was shown in the receipt challans of the factory while the weight of gunny bags was shown on the lower side after deducting the moisture from 10% to 40% of the gross weight of the gunny bags. Enquiries made from some persons who were stated to have supplied bagasse to the appellants revealed that certain supplies had not been made. On the basis of the above information and investigations, a show cause notice was issued on 27-5-1986 alleging manipulation and fabrication of the records to show that kraft paper and printing and writing paper manufactured by the appellants contained not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse and demanding duty on these two types of paper manufactured and cleared during the period 1-5-1983 to 1-12-1985 by denying the benefit of Notifications 191/80 and 142/81, invoking the extended period of limitation on the allegation that the appellants had mis-represented that they were manufacturing paper containing the requisite proportion of bagasse pulp by weight as per the Notification. The show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalty. The appellants replied to the notice on 26-11-1986 denying all the allegations and contending inter alia that there was no mis-statement or manipulation or concealment because all their statutory records and registers, RG 1 register, raw material register, GP Is, RT 12 returns, RT 5 returns were duly maintained and submitted from time to time to the Central Excise officers; that their classification lists for the entire period in dispute has been approved and assessment made at nil rate of duty after making necessary investigations and enquiries; that the statement of Shri Bhowmik and Shri Pathak were not voluntary; that the seizure of kraft paper was not justified as it was duly accounted for in the RG 1 register; that the moisture content in the bagasse has been wrongly fixed as 50%; that the paper manufactured by them satisfied the conditions of the Notification and, therefore, the demand was not sustainable, and lastly they contended that in any event, the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department in the absence of any suppression on their part. The adjudicating authority upheld the charge of non-fulfilment of conditions stipulated in the Notifications and the charge of manipulation of records so as to avail nil rate of duty of assessment and confirmed the demand applying the extended period of limitation. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant and Shri J.M. Sharma, learned DR.
4. The admitted process of manufacture which is set out in the reply to the show cause notice and reproduced in paragraph 3(1) at internal page 7 of the impugned order is as under :
“That briefly stated the process of manufacture is that “the bagasse and old/teased gunny after receipt were stored in open space. There were two digesters installed in the factory and in these digesters bagasse and old/teased gunny bags were cooked separately by adding sufficient quantity of water and chemicals. The digesters are loaded with these raw materials to the full capacity of the digester without any weighment. No weighment was done because the average-moisture contents of these materials cannot be determined due to the fact that both these materials are hydrographic in nature and also face the climatic effects. This estimated feed of raw materials to the digesters was never objected by the Central Excise authorities and was in the knowledge of the department. After the bagasse was completely cooked up in the digesters, it was unloaded in Potcher for washing by flowing in fresh water therein. The soft material was then directly passed on to the bagasse pulp chest, where as hard material was passed out to Beaters and from beaters the material was sent to bagasse pulp chest. Similarly, when the old/teased gunny was completely cooked up in the digester the cooked material was unloaded on the ground from where it was put to beaters for making the material into smaller size and fibres and soft by flowing in water etc. and from where the material was sent to old/teased gunny pulp chest. The bagasse pulp chest and old /teased gunny chest were of the same capacity for the pulp material. Thereafter by taking dip measurement through dip-stock, 3/4th material from bagasse chest and l/4th material from old/teased gunny chest were sent to blending chest, where these two different pulps in the ratio of 3:1 were mixed, i.e. the mixed pulp contained not less than 75% by weight of pulp made from bagasse. The party has asserted that it is by dip measurement in the pulp chest that the ratio of 3:1 makes the baggase pulp 75% by weight and 25% pulp of old/teased gunny for manufacture of printing and writing paper as well as kraft paper.”
5. What is to be considered is the basis for ascertaining if the requirements of Notifications 191 /80 and 142/81 are fulfilled. The other relevant point relates to the question as to upon whom the onus of proving that the paper contained 75% or more by weight of pulp made from bagasse lies. We find that duty demand in this case has been worked out on the figures of production of both types of paper viz. kraft paper and printing and writing paper furnished by the appellants in their statutory records. The charts forming annexures to the show cause notice showing the quantity of different types of paper manufactured, recovery of pulp bagasse, percentage of bagasse are annexed hereunder. That the Department has accepted the figures of paper production shown by the appellants in their statutory records does not automatically lead to the conclusion that their recorded figures of quantity of bagasse received and used have also been accepted; in fact RT 5 returns containing figures of receipt and issue of raw materials and the Form IV register have been disputed by the Department as enquiries conducted by the Department revealed that most of the names and addresses entered in the appellants books as bagasse suppliers, other than M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. who also supplied bagasse to the appellants from April, 1983 to November, 1985, were fictitious. The appellants had not maintained any proper account of bagasse or jute received. The Managing Director of the appellant company Shri K.K. Jhunjhunwala has also stated categorically on 26-11-1985 that no records were being maintained and the incomplete records produced on 1-12-1985 indicates that the records had been fabricated after the first visit of the officers on 26-11-1985. Since no records were being maintained, there was no method of verification from records as to the percentage of bagasse pulp by weight which went into the manufacture of the two varieties of paper during the period in dispute. The doubt as to the use of 75% or more by weight of bagasse pulp arose on examination, of RG 1 and raw material account in Form IV and the feeding capacity of the digester during the period of process of manufacture that the digester, according to the statement of Shri Jhunjhunwala was capable of holding 8000 Kgs. of bagasse and 4000 Kgs of teased gunny bags and it did not hold to reason that the digester of the same size could hold such vast quantity of different raw materials. The doubt was further strengthened when workers engaged in the production on enquiry reported that the kraft paper was being manufactured by using bagasse and jute in the ratio of 50:50. There was also huge variation found on checking stock of jute and bagasse in Form IV register, applying the consumption rate of previous months adjusted to November production figures. The mixing of bagasse pulp and old gunny bags pulp in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively (stated by the MD) was also held to be insufficient to determine the quantity of pulp utilised since pulp consistency was a very important parameter in determining the utilisation of bone dry pulp. It appeared that there was no standard and proper method to determine the ratio of bagasse pulp. The log book maintained from 1-10-1985 to 26-11-1985 showing consumption of bagasse pulp and old gunny bag pulp in the ratio of 3:1 respectively shiftwise was found on examination to have been prepared in haste, and containing uniform writing, thereby leading to the reasonable belief that it contained misleading information with regard to the percentage by weight of bagasse pulp. The Department has also found that the receipt of old gunny bags was entered in the private account as well as in Form IV register at a lower figure after deducting moisture in excess of 10% of the same, while a different method was being adopted for entry of bagasse as seen from Form IV register. The Board’s instruction prescribing the method of determination of utilisation of pulp of various varieties by weight has also not been followed by the appellants. The learned Consultant is not correct in his submissions that the Form IV register and RT 5 returns have been accepted by the Department as the Department has charged the appellants with manipulation of these records and, therefore, reliance upon the approval of classification list in 1984 extending the benefit of the relevant notifications is misplaced. The submission of the appellant that the error in holding that the percentage of bagasse pulp by weight is less than 75% arises from the Department’s applying uniformly 50% moisture content in the bagasse and paper recovery rate of 40% while the moisture content varies from 10% to 50% in bagasse while the recovery of paper is not always at the recovery rate is 55%, but average rate of 40% is also not acceptable because these are not the only factors which form the basis for holding that the conditions of the notifications have not been fulfilled; the quantity of bagasse received and used itself has been disputed by the Department. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the moisture content of 50% in bagasse as it comes out in the manufacture of sugar in a sugar mill has been certified by M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills from whom the appellants purchased bagasse. While we agree with the appellants that it is not possible to ascertain the percentage by weight of bagasse pulp by testing of finished paper, since the appellants had not maintained proper accounts and records on the basis of which such percentage could be ascertained, they have not discharged the onus of proving that they were entitled to the benefit of the notifications in question. Therefore, the demand has been rightly raised and the adjudicating authority cannot be faulted in confirming the duty liability on the quantity of paper manufactured and cleared at nil rate of duty during the relevant period and in levying duty on seized kraft paper which the appellants were not able to satisfy as eligible to assessment at nil rate of duty under the Notifications. We also hold that the extended period of limitation is available to the Department, due to deliberate manipulation of figures of raw materials utilised, both by showing purchase of bagasse from persons who either did not exist or did not deal in bagasse, and by entering higher quantity of bagasse in their records than the actual receipts and entering jute/gunny in the records at a lower notional figures.
6. Penalty is also warranted for contravention of the relevant rules as also of confiscation of the seized kraft paper.
7. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.K. Bhatnagar) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Vice President Member (J)
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
8. With due respects to Hon'ble Member (Judicial), my views and orders in the matter are as follows.
9. I observe that the department’s view has been elaborately dealt with in the above paragraphs. It is also necessary to incorporate in our order the main submissions of the appellants which are as follows.
10. The appellants submitted that the entire approach is only on presumptions and suspicion. Immediately after the commencement of the operations, the authorities conducted necessary verifications and checks with reference to the records maintained and computed the details and concluded categorically that the bagasse pulp content was 80%. The authorities are saddled with the responsibility to ensure that the concession is extended only after satisfaction, in keeping with the directions issued by the CBEC conducted periodical checks. Hence, it is incorrect to say that either the records were manipulated or the records were not sufficient. At no point of time between January, 1983 and November, 1985, there was any question raised with reference to any inadequacy of the records maintained. As regards the alleged excess receipt of bagasse, the accounts were maintained with reference to the challan, quantity, but the consumption was with reference to the actual quantity. As a consequence (in view of recording the receipts as per the challan quantity) there was physical shortage as compared to the book balance. In other words, no advantage was taken with reference to such alleged excess quantity. As regards rags (gunny bags), there was no short accounting of the quantity. The quantities were accounted with reference to the actual weight received and for which weight alone the payment is made which formed the very basis of transactions between the supplier and the appellants. Since it is a common case that such gunny bags are dirty, contain foreign materials, dust, etc., for ascertaining the gunny weight for payment, it is to be taken excluding moisture, foreign materials, dust, etc. It was accordingly taken.
11. As regards the moisture content in bagasse, M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. clearly advised the excise authorities that the moisture content would be around 50% in season i.e. when the bagasse is cleared as such and it would be less by 15% (i.e. 35%) if the bagasse is stacked for 3/4 months. Hence, it is incorrect to ignore the varying percentage of moisture between 35 to 50% and assume only 50%. The recovery percentage has been taken as 40% as against the evidence placed on record subscribing to 55% recovery, 59% recovery and 71.4% recovery. No reason is given to discard such expert opinion. The recovery percentage and moisture content were arrived at for the entire consumption with reference to the opinions taken which are identical including the typographical errors. When the persons giving the opinion were not offered for cross-examination, such evidence loses its evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon. Hence the very basis of the demand is liable to be set aside. The reason given for not offering the persons for cross-examination is also incorrect. While bone drive status has been adopted for bagasse, bone dry weight of the paper has not been taken. The incorrectness in calculation are :
(a) Bagasse taken as bone dry but not the paper. In other words instead of taking 92 Kg as the bone-dry weight of paper, 100 Kgs have been taken.
(b) The moisture content of bagasse has been assumed at the maximum of 50% instead of 35% and 50%.
(c) The recovery percentage has been assumed to be at the minimum of 40% whereas it can go up to 71.4% with the study average of 50%.
12. It was his submission that without going into the other aspects even if the computation is made on reasonable basis, it would show that the assumption was incorrect. Three charts are made indicating the bagasse pulp content in paper (100 Kgs i.e. including moisture) to show that the percentage content of bagasse pulp was meeting the requirement of 75%. If the bone dry bagasse is considered, the total paper weight is to be considered as 92 Kg and not 100 Kg. Accordingly, if the percentage is 69, it would be equal to 75% on 100 Kgs. However, in respect of January, February and March, 1985, even as per these calculations the bagasse content is less than the required limit of 75%. In any case, for the period May, June and July, 1983, in view of the verification, the question of disturbing the same cannot at all arise. Since the moisture content of bagasse and recovery percentage are always verifiable, the question of alleging suppression and invoking the extended period cannot at all arise. The present assumption is, in any case, not based on any test results or industrial average.
13. It is worth noting that the appellants have drawn attention, inter alia to the Board’s Circular F. No. 8/37/64-C.X.VI, dated 30-4-1964 which relates to Notification 33/64 as amended by Notification 91/64, dated 17-4-1964 and prescribes the mechanics of conferring the concession with reference to the use of bagasse.
14. Although this Circular relates to a period prior to the period with which we are concerned, its essential features would still be relevant for our purpose.
15. What is important to note is that the responsibility has been cast both on the assessees as well as officers. While assessees have to adjust their processes and procedure and conform to the requirements of this Circular to maintain records properly according to it, the officers have also been given the responsibilities.
16. The appellants have been able to show that the officers have been visiting their factory for inspection and verification and have recorded what they found in order. The Order-in-Original refers to the visit of the factory in 1985 and it was alleged that the entries pertaining to the period May, 1983 to 1-12-1985 are of doubtful nature. Our attention has also been drawn in this connection to the letter of the Supdt. dated 8-7-1986indicating the details of the samples which were sent to the Chemical Examiner at Delhi and the report of the Chemical Examiner thereon. It is interesting to note from this letter that instead of testing the samples, they have simply drawn attention to Board’s Circular Letter No. 5 (Paper)/64. Therefore, the aforesaid circular has a direct relevance to the case before us. It is interesting to note that this Circular recognises the fact that it is not possible to determine the percentage of bagasse pulp used in any given sample of paper and emphasised physical supervision and accounting checks.
17. It is also noteworthy that the appellants have stated and it has not been denied by the Department that the assessments were initially made provisionally pending enquiry regarding use of percentage of bagasse pulp and only thereafter approved and the clearances were taken according to the approved classification lists and the appellants had submitted monthly RT 12 returns regularly which were finally assessed. With reference to this context if a doubt subsequently arose in the mind of the officers, it was certainly open to them to make further enquiries and investigations and adjudicate the matter but, what is not clear is that how is it that while the Board itself recognised the fact that it was not possible to find out the percentage of bagasse used from examining the sample of the final product (paper), how is it that some ‘experts’ could give an opinion regarding percentage contained by examining such samples of papers. Normally, the Board issues such circulars after consulting the various technical experts (within or outside the Department) and therefore, when both departmental chemical examiner and the Board are tallying that it was not possible, how is it that gentleman whose opinion was taken, opined to the contrary. It is surprising that what was not possible at the time of issue of Board’s Circular and was also not found possible during the period referred to in the Supdt.’s letter dated 8-7-1986 (which includes the relevant period 1983, 1984 & 1985) the technologists or experts mentioned in the order could opine from just examining the sample of the kraft paper. It is also interesting to note that while giving this opinion, Shri Lyngwa does not indicate the method and manner by which he conducted the test, if any and the basis on which his opinion rested. It also appears that his statement has also been recorded separately. Similarly, in the case of Shri Kanta Pandey itself notes that he has merely indicated the process of manufacture of the paper manufactured from the pulp and from fibres from various sources. Similarly, there is a statement of Shri Sameer Bhowmik in which he gives opinion about paper made from pulp, manufacturing process etc.
18. What strikes me is that if the Chemical Examiner of the Department on one hand and the Board itself on the other had one view and these Experts have given a contrary or different view, it was very necessary that their cross-examination should have been allowed all the more so when the appellants had questioned their independence and impartiality and referred to rivalry with other concerns in this regard and the classification lists had been approved first provisionally pending enquiry and thereafter finally.
19. It was also necessary to determine at the adjudicating stage as to whether the records maintained by them during the entire period in question were wrong or doubtful and if everything was doubtful or wrong, what did the visiting officers do during the course of their inspections and visits and what was that which they found in order and what was that which they did not look into. In my opinion, while the show cause notice is a detailed one and has many annexures and has referred to many statements and records and enquiries, the adjudicating officer has proceeded on a more broad and general premise and has not dealt with all the issues and points raised by the appellants before him and has not allowed the cross-examination in the above circumstances which was necessary when the adjudicating officer had himself also found that the departmental chemical examiner had declined to give a clear cut opinion and referred only to Board’s circular. And in these circumstances, it could not be said that no useful purpose would be served.
20. In view of the above observations and findings, I feel that principles of natural justice have not been duly observed in this case. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for re-consideration with the direction that he should pass a detailed order covering all the points raised by the appellants after allowing them an opportunity to cross-examine the experts on whose opinion and statements the Department has relied upon and whose cross-examination was requested by the appellants and record a finding why the assessments which were initially made provisionally and finally later on after enquiry/verification were required to be re-opened at this stage; And, indicate the period for which after due enquiry the records were found correct and the period for which or during which there was sufficient reason to believe that the records were manipulated and if so, how and to what extent as it was necessary to do so in order to arrive at a correct decision.
Sd/-
(S.K. Bhatnagar)
Vice President
POINT OF DIFFERENCE
21. In view of difference of opinion between Hon’ble Member (Judicial) and the Vice President, the matter is submitted to Hon’ble President for referring it to a Third Member on the following point :-
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is required to be rejected as held by Hon’ble Member (Judicial) or the matter is required to be remanded in the light of observations of the Vice President.”
Sd/- Sd/-
(Jyoti Balasundaram) (S.K. Bhatnagar)
Member (J) Vice President
THIRD MEMBER'S OPINION
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
22. I have heard Shri R.S. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR for the respondents.
23. The point of difference arising between the two Members (ld. Judicial Member & ld. Vice President) has already been set out above.
24. Records of the appellant in respect of raw-materials are not being relied upon by the adjudicating authority on the basis of statements of different persons as also on certain circumstances that records were not produced at the time of C.E. officers’ visit to the factory or the entries are in the same ink. While the two circumstances mentioned above may only raise some suspicious, but these by themselves are not enough to discard those records. When the Revenue basis its case on statements of certain persons, it becomes the duty of the adjudicating officer to offer them for cross-examination for a request was made by the appellants herein.
25. System of maintaining records was known to the Department and those records were subject to checking by the Revenue Officers and infact those were subjected to such checking from time to time. No objection appears to have been raised by the Department during the relevant period.
26. It is also on record that initially classification list was approved after proper enquiries on the basis of records as stipulated and maintained by the appellant. Approval took place after carrying out checking of figures for three months in 1983-84. There is no allegation that the system of maintenance of records then prevalent leading to approval of classification list underwent a change without the knowledge of the departmental officers so as to call for discarding those records.
27. Last, and yet the most important, case has been made out against the appellants on certain assumption namely (i) percentage of moisure content in bagasse and (ii) percentage of recovery of paper from the pulps. To assume definite percentages in respect of the above two factors and then to make out a case against the appellants is to operate in the realm of conjectures and surmises. In practical working, these percentages have to be kept flexible and proper allowance is required to be given to the appellants for that, particularly when no samples have been drawn from time to time to determine those percentages. I further observe that the percentage of moisture contents of bagasses has been based on a statement from some person of Balrampur Chini Mills and he has not been offered for cross-examination. The appellants have produced a subsequent letter from the said mill in their support. That has been ignored by the adjudicating authority.
28. Further, Revenue has relied upon a statement of Shri Sameer Bhowmick technical man of the appellants. He had joined only a few days before the visit of the C.E. Officers. His statement to the effect that on test the paper produced by the appellants could not contain 75% pulp from bagasse is without any basis when seen in the light of technical opinion of the Department’s Chemical Examiner that test of a sample of paper could not reveal the nature and percentage of pulp. That being the position, reliance placed by Revenue on that statement of Shri Sameer Bhowmick becomes of a doubtful nature.
29. Aforesaid points have been dealt with in detail by the ld. Vice President in his order.
30. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the ld. Vice President for remanding the matter and readjudication in the light of directions given by him in para 20 of his order.
Sd/-
(P.C. Jain)
Member (T)
FINAL ORDER
31. In the light of the majority view, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for re-consideration and passing of a detailed order covering all the points raised by the appellants after allowing them an opportunity to cross-examine the experts on whose opinion and statements the Department has relied and whose cross-examination was requested by the appellants, and for recording a finding as to why the assessments which were initially made provisionally, and finally later on after enquiry/verification, were required to be re-opened at this stage, and to indicate the period for which, after due enquiry, the records were found correct and the period for which or during which there was sufficient reason to plead that the records were manipulated and if so, how and to what extent.
Sd/- Sd/-
(V.K. Agarwal) Jyoti Balasundaram)
Member (T) Member (J)
CHART SHOWING OF PRINTING AND WRITING PAPER, KRAFT PAPER SAID TO HAVE
BEEN OUT OF 75% OF PULP MADE OUT OF BAGASSE BY M/S. YASH PAPER LTD.,
DARSHAN NAGAR, FAIZABAD
Paper manufactured
Kraft Printing Total Bagasse Recovery Percen-
Paper and weight of used of Pulp tage of
Writing Paper fromba- bagasse
Paper manufac- gasse used vis-a-vis
tured for S. No.3 paper
assuming weight
-moisture made as
contents per Col.
@ 50% No. 3
1. 2(a) 2(b) 3. 4. 5. 6.
83 4796.00 103647.00 108443.00 271107.50 54221.50 50%
83 88179.80 64295.10 152474.90 381187.25 76237.44 49.9%
83 31807.30 106154.30 137961.60 344904.00 68980.80 50%
83 16373.40 3224.50 48614.90 124000.00 24800.00 51%
83 - - - - - -
to
84
84 129852.20 - 129852.20 480000.00 6000.00 73.9%
84 13850.80 - 13850.80 48000.00 9600.00 69.3%
84 98849.00 - 98849.00 328000.00 65600.00 66.3%
Percentage Eligib- Remarks
of bagasse ility
Pulp by for ex-
empt-
weight
ion
used in
manufac- Notif
ture of icati
paper as on
per Col. 3 No.
7. 8. 9.
Below
75%
"
"
" During these 3 months M/s. Yash Paper Ltd. have also
- manufactured paper other than enjoying exemption at
Nil rate of duty as detailed in this chart viz., paper
claiming advantage of concessional rate of duty due
utilization of unconventional raw material. Since party
hag not maintained separate a/cs of utilisation of raw
material for these different varieties of paper,
calculation has been done on the basis of allocation of
bagasse consumed totally, for paper enjoying
exemption whereby paper can be cleared at Nil rate of
duty as per Chart I. Since some utilization would have
definitely taken place for paper manufactured out of
unconventional raw material actual figure of bagasse
utilization will be still lower.
1. 2(a) 2(b) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
July, 84 239975.40 - 139975.40 328000.00 65600.00 46.8% Below 75%
Aug., 84 68965.70 - 68965.70 176000.00 35200.00 51% "
Sept.,84 101281.90 - 101281.90 216000.00 43200.00 42.6% "
Oct., 84 145800.30 - 145800.30 328000.00 65600.00 45% "
Nov., 84 171143.30 - 171143.30 384000.00 76800.00 44.8% "
Dec., 84 151187.40 - 151187.40 336000.00 67200.00 44.4% "
Jan., 85 192072.90 - 192072.90 432000.00 86400.00 44.9% "
Feb., 85 142192.66 - 142192.66 328000.00 65600.00 46.1% "
Mar., 85 151815.50 - 151815-50 344000.00 68800.00 45.3% "
Apr., 85 150888.00 - 150888.00 344000.00 68800.00 45.5% "
May, 85 191670.70 - 191670.70 432000.00 86400.00 45% "
June, 85 161399.20 - 161399.20 360000.00 72000.00 44.6% "
July, 85 201187.90 - 201187.90 416000.00 91200.00 41.3% "
Aug., 85 165025.80 - 165025.80 376000.00 75200.00 45.5% "
Sept.,85 201282.50 - 201282.50 456000.00 91200.00 45.3% "
1. 2(a) 2(b) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Oct., 85 181068.90 - 181069.80 416000.00 33200.00 45.9%
Nov., 85 118485.10
Upto 1371009.00
29th
Nov.
Period 1090.94
for 30th
Nov.,
85 to 1st
Dec., 85
Note 1:- Bagasse utilised figures are as per Form IV
(Annexure D. 2 to D. 8)
Note 2 :- Paper production figures are as per RT. 12 submitted to Range
Office for figure from May, 1983 to Oct., 1985 for Nov.,1985
to 1st Dec, 1985, See Chart 11.
Note 3:- Form IV for November, 1985 has not been filled-up. However
see Annexure U for further comments.
Note 4:- Here bagasse pulp recovery in ultimate paper manufactured is
taken at 100%. However, there is a wastage in recovery of
pulp in ultimate paper manufactured. This wastage crossed
as high as 10%. Hence actual pulp weight of bagasse in
paper will be still lower.
Note 5 :- Paper weight is equal to pulp weight that is recovered in
manufactured. However it may be more to the extent of
loading materials added (if any). In case of Kraft Paper
normally no loading materials are added. In printing and
writing paper loading materials are sometimes added but
account for not more than 5 to 75% of total weight of paper
manufactured. As discussed in point No. 4 above, loading if
any done is more than off set in wastage of pulp in term of
to incomplete recovery of pulp in paper.