Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 539 - AT - Central ExciseClassification Of Heads - Printing of the duty paid GI paper - Manufacture Or Not - Estoppel - Excisability - Whether the impugned goods mainly GIP wrappers in rolls printed by the appellants out of GI base paper in rolls on which duty has been paid under sub-heading 4805.90 is chargeable to duty under sub-heading 4811.90? - HELD THAT:- The learned Advocate forcefully argued that in their own case, the Tribunal has held that a similar product namely the Printed Plastic Rolls is a product of the printing industry and classifiable under Chapter 49 and the department has not gone in appeal against the Tribunal’s decision. However, this argument of learned Counsel, in our view has been effectively countered by the learned DR by stating that apart from the products being different, in taxation matters there is no estoppel particularly in matters relating to classification. As such, we hold the impugned goods to be classifiable under sub-heading 4811.90. Printing of the duty paid GI paper - Manufacture Or Not - It is well-settled that mere change of tariff classification from one heading to another, in this case, from 48.05 to 48.11, would not make the product excisable unless the process meets the test of manufacture. We find that there are decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR, which have held similar goods such as wrappers for soap, wrappers for biri and printed PVC sheets to be manufactured goods on account of printing. However, the decisions cited by the learned Advocate mainly the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass [1997 (12) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT], and decision in the case of Printorium [1999 (2) TMI 674 - SC ORDER], which has been uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decision in the case of ITC Ltd. [2004 (2) TMI 95 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold that printing of glass bottles, aluminium foils, paperboard respectively do not result in manufacture of new commodity. We have also kept in view arguments from both sides in the context of classification of the impugned product that the printing is incidental and primary use of GI printed paper roll is for wrapping, which is not changed by the process of printing. Hence following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass (cited supra), we are of the view that if the impugned printed products are produced in the same factory, where paper is produced, it would be chargeable to duty under Heading 48.11, whereas in this case, the appellants have bought duty paid GI paper and merely carried out the process of printing, hence they are not required to pay duty on such printed GI papers produced from duty paid GI paper as the process of printing in this case does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, in view of our finding above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.
|