1996 (11) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT

Whether `Printed Aluminium Labels'(hereinafter referred to as "labels") manufactured by the appellant are `products of the printing industry' within the meaning of Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?

Held that:- The label announces to the customer that the product is or is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. This Court in Rollatainers case held that "what is exempt under the notification is the `product' of the printing industry. The `product' in this case is the carton. The printing industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence". Let us apply this above formula to the facts of this case. The `product' in this case is the aluminium printed label. The printing industry has brought the label into existence. That being the position and further the test of trade having understood this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products of the printing industry. It is true that all products on which some printing is done, are not the products of printing industry. It depends upon the nature of products and other circumstances. Therefore, the issue has to be decided with reference to facts of each case. A general test is neither advisable nor practicable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in concluding that the printed aluminium labels in question are not `products of printing industry'. Appeal allowed.