Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 493 - AT - Central ExciseActivity amounting to manufacture or not - work of printed labels and printed cartons for corrugated boxes falling under Tariff Heading 48211020 and 48191010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - manufacture and clearance of printed labels without assessing the duty involved thereon, without payment of duty and without issuing proper invoices for clearances of such goods during the period January 2007 to March 2011 - contravention of provisions of Rules, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - vague SCN - HELD THAT:- The case of the department is that the appellant is a job worker who received raw material from the customers and do the activity of printing which amounts to manufacture of finished products. However, in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original it is not explained by department as to which is the provision which renders the activity of printing undertaken by the appellant excisable so as to be ‘manufacture’. The Department has construed the activity of printing to be manufacture, merely because the goods fall under tariff heading 482110. The classification of the goods or its excisability cannot be a ground for holding that the activity amounts to ‘manufacture’. The department has to establish that the activity undertaken by the appellant as per the chapter notes of Section 48 to be that of manufacture. In the present case, there is nothing brought out on record to hold that the activity of printing is “manufacture’ by chapter notes. In the case of M/S MATCHWELL VERSUS C.C.E. -AHMEDABAD-I [2019 (6) TMI 1019 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal had occasion to consider similar issue. It was held that merely because the goods are classifiable under a particular tariff heading, it cannot be said that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the nature of printing of images on paper would amount to ‘manufacture’. In the case of HBD PACKAGING (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2013 (5) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], similar issue was considered wherein it was held that the activity of printing and plastic / varnish coating of plain paperboard as per customer’s specification either purchased by assessee or received for job work does not amount to manufacture. It was held that the basic character of paper board has not changed. Thus, the activity of printing done by the appellant does not amount to ‘manufacture’. The demand of Excise duty, interest and the penalties imposed cannot sustain. The demand, interest and penalties are set aside. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.
|