Judgment:
1.The issue in dispute in the above appeal relates to the excisability and consequent duty liability of Bitumenised kraft paper. The period in dispute is March to June 1976.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein purchase duty paid kraft paper classifiable under TI 17(2) of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and then bitumenised the same by an application of bitumen liquid between two sheets of kraft paper pressed against each other and sandwiched between them. The products are then marketed as bitumenised kraft paper. Two show cause notices, one dated 31-7-76 raising a demand of Rs. 12,764.70 for the period 16-3-76 to 26-5-76, and the other dated 31-7-76 for Rs. 1682.50 for the period 27-5-76 to 28-6-76 were issued on the ground that the process of bitumenisation amounts to manufacture and that the bitumenised kraft paper is classifiable under TI 17(2). The Assistant Collector confirmed the total demand of Rs. 14,447.20; the lower appellate authority upheld his order; hence this appeal by the assessees.
3. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence, we heard the learned SDR and perused the records. We find that the issue is no longer res integra, having been settled in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Babubhai Nylchand Me-hta reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 182 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 292 (Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court held that bitumenised kraft paper does not amount to manufacture.
Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.