Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2011 (8) TMI 641 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - products which emerge after printing on paper polyethylene coated paper and on PVC films could be treated as arising out of manufacture or not - FACTS Printing is of a sophisticated nature and the printed materials contain details which are required statutorily and information related to manufacture i.e brand name logo etc. which are sought to be conveyed to the consumers. They are used for wrapping cigarette packets and they serve definite purpose different from mere wrapping. Classifiable under 4901.90 OR 4823.19 - Held That - Activities undertaken in the present cases would amount to manufacture we also accept the alternative submissions on behalf of the assessees that the products should be treated as products of printing industry and classifiable under Chapter 49 instead of 39. On merits demand is set aside. Tribunal has distinguished the decisions of Rolla Tainers Ltd. Vs. UOI (1994 -TMI - 43802 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE Madras (1997 -TMI - 44801 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) stating that in The Hon ble Supreme Court was not considering such a situation while determining whether the printed cartons would fall under the category of products of printing industry. In the said case the issue was whether the printed cartons should be treated as products of printing industry or products of packaging industry. Hon ble Supreme Court after noting that the printing industry by itself could not bring cartons into existence held that such printed cartons could not be considered as products of printing industry. The ratio of the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case which involve determination of classification of the printed products which could fall either under chapter 48 or 49 depending upon the nature and scope of printing on the products.
|