Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 175 - AT - Central ExciseClassification of goods - printed PVC sheets - classifiable under sub-heading 3920.39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Chapter 49, as product of printing industry? - HELD THAT:- Only those printed goods which are not incidental to the primary use, would be excluded from Chapter 39. The respondents have produced before us plain as also printed PVC sheets. It is seen that the printing on the plain sheets is only to enhance the beauty of the plain sheet and both the types are being used for the same purpose, i.e. either as table coverings or shower curtain, etc. As such it is clear that the printing on the plain sheet is only incidental and does not convert the plain plastic sheets into something different so as to take it away from the Chapter 39 and make it fall under Chapter 49, as a result of printing industry. It is well settled that Chapter 49 covers product of printing industry like labels, etc. which imparts the character to the goods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of METAGRAPHS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY [1996 (11) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT] has, while deciding upon the classification of aluminum labels, has held that printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicate to the customers about the products and thus serve a definite purpose. It is the printing industry which brought label into existence. They have further observed that the products on which some printing is done are not the products of printing industry and the classification is to be contested with reference to the fact of the each case. Inasmuch as printing in the present case is not of prime importance so as to convey the main use of PVC sheet, it cannot be said that the final product has come into existence on account of the printing having been done on the same. It is also seen that the appellants are clearing printed plastic sheets to the market, in which case the duty is required to be paid on the assessable value of the printed sheets. However, at this stage, ld. Advocate submits that they had already paid duty on the plain PVC sheets and they may be allowed the benefit of Modvat credit of the same, while discharging duty on the printed sheets. Inasmuch as the duty is being demanded on the printed sheets, it is held that the duty already paid on the plain sheets would be adjustable towards the final duty required to be paid by the respondents, for which purposes, matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for doing quantification. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|