Central Excise

Independent business entity was not tenable for the reasons that appellant and another concern were located on the same premises; that both businesses had consolidated income tax returns; that one owner of the other concern was actually an employee of the appellant and that said concern was merged into the appellant in the past.

Documentary evidence regarding cost of manufacture of paper and paper-board products was exhaustive as the prices of waste paper (street picking, corrugated carton waste, old and used cement sacks/bags etc.) were confirmed from several sources including waste paper dealers and sales tax invoices of many registered persons.

Non-issuance of prescribed bill of charges showed the mala fides and non-deposit of Central Excise Duty, so received in the tax/duty inclusive charges amounted to fraud.

Production of lead oxide, was considered/classified as pigment by the Department and charged central excise duty under, Item No. 04.03 of the First Sched. of the Central Excises Act, 1944

Validity

Lead oxide had not reached such stage of manufacture through a chemical process of classification at a temperature of over 350°c based on which it could be categorised as pigment

Same fell outside the preview of Item No.04.03 of First Sched. of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and was not liable to central excise duty

Classification of goods and in particular that of chemicals, their derivatives or preparations could only be given on the basis of very clear determination of chemical attributes which was possible only through chemical test and not on the basis of authority or wisdom

Lead oxide alongwith zinc oxide which appellants were producing were not liable to excise duty as being chemicals in circumstances

Order of Department was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.