1997 INSC 0711
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                         Entremonde Polycoaters (P) Ltd.

                                                           Vs.

                                        Collector of Central Excise, Pune

                                             (J Verma and B Kirpal JJ.)

                                                      24.07.1997

                                                       ORDER

1. The appellant manufactures "plastic-coated paper" in respect of which it has already paid duty on
the paper as well as the plastic material including the colours used for manufacture of the plastic-
coated paper. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption from
payment of duty granted by Notification No. 68/76-CE dated 16-3-1976. The relevant part of that
notification reads as under: "TABLE Sl. No. Description Rate of duty Condition (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. *
**

2. * * *

3. * * *

4. Following varieties of paper, namely:

(i) * (ii) Converted types of Nil If it is proved paper commonly known to the sa tisfaction as
imitation flint paper of the proper or leatherette paper or officer that the pl astic-coated paper, or
appropriate duty of by any other name, excise or additional obtained by one side of duty leviable
under paper being subjected to Section 2-A of the printing of col our, with Indian Tariff Act, or
without design, 1934 (32 of 1934), irrespective of the fact as the case may be, whether or not such
has already been paper is subsequently paid in respect of va rnished or glazed by the paper used in
chemicals or embossed, their manufacture. and falling under s ub- item (2) of the aforesaid Item 17.
(iii) * "

The Tribunal has rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that one side of the paper has not been
subjected to printing of colours and, therefore, benefit of exemption under the above notification is
not available. The correctness of this view is challenged in this appeal.

2. There is no dispute that the goods in question is "plastic-coated paper". That being so, the
question is whether there is a further requirement of the plastic-coated paper being subjected to
printing of colour on one side thereof. As we construe the above entry in the notification, we think
that this additional requirement is not necessary for plastic-coated paper. The plain and reasonable
construction of the above-quoted entry is that "imitation flint paper" or "leatherette paper" or
"plastic-coated paper" are three types of paper known by these names which do not require the
fulfilment of any other condition such as printing of colour on one side thereof for getting the
benefit of the exemption under that notification. This further requirement of being subjected to
printing of colour on one side is necessary in respect of the converted types of paper commonly
known by any other name, that is, a name other than "imitation flint paper" or "leatherette paper" or
"plastic-coated paper". The further requirements specified in the words following the expression "by
any other name", apply to converted types of paper commonly known by any other name, that is, by
a name other than "imitation flint paper" or "leatherette paper" or "plastic-coated paper", but not to
any of these three types of paper of which the specific name has been so mentioned. This being so,
for the manufacture of plastic-coated paper by the appellant, benefit of exemption from payment of
duty under the above notification is available to the appellant.

3. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.