Judgment:
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of various excisable goods falling under Chapters 48, 28, 29 & 34. He filed a classification declaration for the products classifying them under various chapter headings. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification determined by the original authority in the following manner. It is held that (a) Rustopaper made out of plain kraft paper and polycoated kraft paper classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4811.90, (b) Rustopaper made out of HDPE/LDPE laminated paper under 5911.90, (c) Rustopaper bags made out of rustopaper under 4819.90 and the bags made out of laminated paper under 5911.90, (d) Rustopreventive oil under 2710.90, (e) Rustopreventive jel under 3403.00, (f) Rustopliq under 3403.00, (g) Rust remover under 3823.00, (h) Tyre lubricant under 3403.00, (i) Rust converter under 3403.00.
3. The appellant contends that insofar as rustopaper made out of plain kraft paper and polycoated kraft paper is concerned, no process of manufacture is involved in converting duty paid kraft paper into coated paper. The second leg of the argument is that even if it is held that a process of manufacture did take place and the goods in question are classifiable under sub-heading 4811.90, the appellant is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE., dated 16-3-1995 at Serial Nos. 23 and 24 where cartons, boxes, containers and cases made out of corrugated paper and paperboard are exempt from duty under certain conditions. It is the appellant's contention that his goods, insofar as bags made out of coated and laminated paper are concerned, fall under Serial No. 23 of the said notification and insofar as coated paper goes, it falls under Serial No. 24. The appellant relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills wherein the Tribunal held that a paper remains a printing and writing paper even after it is further coated and therefore no process amounting to manufacture can be said to have taken place. The Tribunal held that an article with a different name commercially may have emerged when such a process takes place, but it is not a distinct article with different character or use. We observe that the case law cited above is with reference to the entries in the old tariff and the ratio contained in the decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case at least for the reason that the appellant does not get a coated duty paid paper for further coating. The facts reveal that the appellant obtains duty paid paper on which coating is done in some cases and in others, lamination with HDPE/LDPE. Simply stated, it is not a case of further coating as was the case in Shree Vindhya Paper Mills. A new product does come into existence in the present cases and a process of manufacture does take place. Thus we hold that coated paper falls under chapter sub-heading 4811.90 and rustopaper made out of HDPE/LDPE falls under 5911.90. The bags made out of these different papers fall under the appropriate headings meant for such paper or laminated paper as the case may be.
The appellant's contention that bags made out of coated paper fall under Serial No. 23 to Notification No. 18/95 is incorrect as that entry covers bags made out of corrugated paper/paper board. In regard to the rest of the products manufactured by the appellant, it is canvassed that there is again no process of manufacture as the appellant only buys chemicals, dilutes them and then sells them with his brand name. The original authority while classifying the various oils, jels etc. under different headings has brought out the process of manufacture that is undertaken by the appellant after procuring duty paid chemicals from outside. We have perused the order-in-original. We hold that the processes undertaken by the appellant on the chemicals amount to manufacture. The resultant products fall under different chapter headings/sub-headings as mentioned in the adjudication order.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that (a) there is a process of manufacture and (b) the goods in question fall under different tariff headings as mentioned above.