ivil Appeal No 2335 of 1989
From Order No 76688 C dated 24101988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No B84785 C V Sreedharan NM Poppli and VJ Francis for the Appel lant
Ashok H Desai Solicitor General Ms Randharangaswami and P Parmeswaran for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI CJ
This is an appeal from the order of the Customs Excise  Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the CEGAT  dated 24th Octo ber 1988 under section 35 Lb of the Central Excises  Salt Act 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The appeal which the CEGAT disposed of had been filed by the Collector of Central Excise Guntur against the order of the Collector of Central Excise Appeals Madras dated 6th February 1985
The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the lamination of duty paid kraft paper with polyethylene resulting in polyethylene laminated kraft paper  would amount to manufacture  and excisable under law or not
It appears that the Collector Appeals in his order following his earlier order in respect of the appellant herein had taken the view that polyethylene laminated or coated kraft paper obtained from duty paid kraft paper is not liable to duty again
632 The Collector of Central Excise Appeals Madras had followed the decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pra desh High Court in the case of Standard Packagings Nellore vs Union of India for reaching the aforesaid finding and held that the appellant would be eligible to claim refund of duty paid by them in this re gard
Lamination indisputably by the well settled principles of excise law amounts to manufacture 
This question in our opinion is settled by the decisions of this Court
Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Empire Industries Ltd  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise Kanpur vs Krishna Carbon Paper Co We are there fore of the opinion that by process of lamination of kraft paper with polyethylene different goods come into being
Laminated kraft paper is distinct separate and different goods known in the market as such from the kraft paper
Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the kraft paper was duty paid goods and there was no change in the essential characteristic or the user of the paper after lamination
The fact that the duty has been paid on the kraft paper is irrelevant for consideration of the issue before us
If duty has been paid then benefit of credit for the duty paid would be available to the appellant under rule 56 A of the Central Excise Rules 1944
The further contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the goods belong to the same entry is also not relevant because even if the goods belong to the same entry the goods are different identifiable goods known as such in the market
If that is so the manufacture occurs and if manu facture takes places it is dutiable Manufacture  is bringing into being goods as known in the excise laws that is to say known in the market having distinct separate and identifiable function
On this score in our opinion there is sufficient evidence
If that is the position then the appellant was liable to pay duty
We are therefore clearly of the opinion that the order of the CEGAT impugned in this appeal does not contain any error
The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed
There will however no order as to costs
GN Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellant owned land hearing RS Nos 4411 and 4420 in village Thottapuzhasseri in Kerala State
Respond ent 3 MMA High School moved an application under Sub clauses a and b of Clause i of Section 1 of Chapter 6 of the Land Acquisition Manual before the State s Education Department praying that the aforesaid land be requisitioned for a public purpose for construction of a playground for the school
The State authorities after complying with the requirements of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act 1961 issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act stating the lands described therein were needed for a public purpose viz construction of a playground for the school
The appel lant challenged the validity of the declaration by filing a writ petition before the High Court contending that i the proposal to acquire the property was mala fide ii that the declaration was bad as no notice was issued to the Education Department as required by Rule 5b and c of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules and iii that the appellant needed the property for construction of houses for his sons
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no violation of the provisions of Rule 5b and c of the Rules nor was there any infringement of Rule 6
Hence this appeal by the appellant by certificate
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD The requisition in the instant case was not made at the instance of the Government Department but at the instance of the Manager private school and the Education Department merely has given a note certifying that the purpose of the requisition is a public purpose and that the school agreed to bear the entire costs
544C D It cannot therefore be contended that the requisition has been made by the Education Department or by its officer for acquisition of the land in question
541C 536 The High Court has rightly held that there has been no violation of Rule 5b and c or 6 of the Rules
541F That it is inappropriate to issue notice to the Education Officer or Departmental Officer who certified about the public purpose as well as readiness of the school authority to pay the entire money for acquisition and failure to issue such a notice to the Departmental Officer would not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and in fringement of the said Rule 5b and c of the said Rules
541 F G Lonappan vs Sub Collector Palghat AIR 1959 Kerala 343 State of Madras and Ors
vs Periakkal and Ors AIR 1974 Madras 383 and State of Mysore and Ors
vs VK Kangan and Ors  at 371 referred to