TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat both the products in question are classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 of Central Excise Tariff attracting basic excise duty at 12% ad valorem. The basis for the classification is that wrapper as a product is used for packing of goods and any printing thereon such as name, brand name and information of the packing goods is merely incidental. The Assistant Collector has also relied on the Explanatory Note C(11) appearing on page 689 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to hold that since confectionary wrappers, food wrappers and other wrappers cut to size are included in Chapter 48 of the HSN, the printed paper wrappers in question should also be held as classifiable under Chapter 48. On the same analogy he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the ruling of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay as reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), wherein a view has been taken that printed aluminium lables are products of the printing industry since printing of the lables is not incidental to its use but primary as it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. It has been further held that printing of carton by itself does not bring the carton into existence and therefore, the product cannot be classified as a product of packaging industry but it has to be considered as product of the printing industry. The learned Advocate fairly brought to the notice of the Bench a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not the products of the printing industry but they are the products of packaging industry and hence the benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 cannot be extended. It is his contention that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Metagraphs should be applied to the present case and not that of the Rollatainers Ltd. 6. The learned DR points out that the article has already come into existence as a wrapper and sleeve and they are definitely cartons meant for packing and therefore, they cannot be considered as article arising from printing industry. Therefore, the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. would apply to the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment rendered in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. the impugned orders are confirmed by dismissing this appeal. Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) dated 21-7-1997 [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - With due respects to Hon. Member (Judicial), my views and orders are as follows :- 8. I observe that in the case of Metagraph Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 630, the Hon ble Supreme Court had taken note of the Rollatainer s case and after doing so observed, inter alia, that 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 w.r.t. facts of each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court s observations in the case of Metagraph Pvt. Ltd., I consider that it will be more appropriate to remand the matter to the A.C. with the direction to record a finding of fact after examining the samples and (enquiry if any necessary) to decide the matter, thereafter in accordance with law after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) (Vice President) dated 15-3-1999 DIFFERENCE OF OPINION In view of difference of opinion; the matter is submitted to the Hon ble President for reference to a Third Member :- Whether the case is required to be dismissed as proposed by the Hon ble Member Judicial or is required to be remanded as proposed by the Vice President? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinting industry is directly applicable to the facts of this case. Further, I find that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Colour Cartons Ltd. reported in 1995 (7) RLT 169, the Tribunal has held that printed wrappers, printed poly bags and printed Cello/poly and cello/cello-laminates in reels are not products of the printing industry and has upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) that the products are articles of packaging industry. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai v. New Jack Printing Works P. Ltd. - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 78 printed wrapping paper for wrapping Cadbury chocolate bars was classified under CET sub-heading 4818.90 and not CET sub-heading 4901.90 as other product of the paper printin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
