9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4811.90? It is the contention of the appellants that merely printing such paper in the rolls with the motive/logo of M/s. Parle Biscuits, which is subsequently waxed and cut into wrappers of required size, does not amount to manufacture and the same is not excisable. (ii) It is the alternate contention of the appellants that the impugned printed rolls are classifiable as product of the printing industry under sub-heading 4901.90 and hence fully exempted from duty as the tariff rate itself is nil. (iii) In case the impugned goods are held to be chargeable to duty under sub-heading 4811.90, the appellants are entitled to take credit of the duty paid on the base paper. (iv) In such a case, the appellants are also eligible for assessment on cum-duty price instead of on the sale price of the impugned goods adopted by the lower authorities as the assessable value. 3. As regards the contentions of the appellants at Sr. Nos. (iii) & (iv) above regarding admissibility of the input duty credit and assessment on the basis of cum-duty price, the learned DR fairly states that in view of the legal provisions and precedent decisions of the Courts/Tribunal, the appellants are eligible for i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther states that this decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the department and no appeal has been filed against the same and till today the department has not revised the classification of such printed plastic films. (v) Sri Kumar Agencies & Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (T) = 2000 (37) RLT 178 (CEGAT) - In this case also, the Tribunal has held that printed PVC films/Paper/Paper board/Polyethylene coated paper to be classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90 even though the same were used for packing. (vi) VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 350 (Tri-Bang) - In this case, the Tribunal has held that "Printed Gay Wrappers" used in packing of Cigarette packets to be classifiable as the products of printing industry under sub-heading 4901.90. 6. The learned Advocate, relying on the aforecited decisions, states that since similar goods including rolls of plastic paper etc. when printed have been considered as product of the printing industry, the impugned goods are also classifiable as the products of the printing industry and charged to nil duty. He also states that the department having accepted the decision of the Tribunal in the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry and also observe that the same remains the product of the packaging industry even after printing. (iv) RMDC Press Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 868 (Tri-Mum) - In this case, the Tribunal by a majority decision has held that printed wrappers for soap is classifiable under heading 48.18 and not as article of printing industry under sub-heading 4801.90. The learned DR relies on the observation of the third Member that the product in question can serve the purpose of wrapping and packing even though the wrapper is printed. He also points out that this decision of the Tribunal also relies on the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rolatainers (cited supra). (v) Headway Lithographic Co. v. CCE, Kolkata-I - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 658 (Tri-Kol) - In this case, the Tribunal has held by a majority decision that printing of plain paper and cutting them to size resulting in the production of biri wrappers amounts to manufacture under the Excise Law. The learned DR states that in para 15 of the decision, the Tribunal has considered that end use of the product to come to its finding. As regards the classification of the product, it was sent to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 11. The last question that remains to be decided is whether printing of the duty paid GI paper would amount to manufacture. It is now well-settled that mere inclusion of a product under the Central Excise Tariff does not make it dutiable. In the present case, the duty paid inputs fall under Chapter heading 48.05 and in view of our finding above, the printed GI paper would be classifiable under Heading 48.11. However, to decide dutiability of the product in question, it is also necessary that the process involved amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Law and also as contended by the learned Advocate, the product is marketable. The learned Advocate states in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi-I v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (SC) to reinforce his argument that mere mention of a product in a tariff heading does not necessarily imply that said product was obtained by process of manufacture. He, therefore, argues that even though the impugned goods in this case may be held to be classifiable under heading 48.11, no duty is payable on the impugned goods since the process of printing does not amount to manufacture. 13. In reply, the learned DR relies on the decision in the case of RMDC Press (cited supra), Headway Lithographic (cited supra) and Caprihance India (cited supra) to argue that since printed wrappers for soap, printed wrappers for Biscuits and printed PVC sheets have been held to be manufactured products, the product in question should also held to be manufactured and dutiable under Heading 48.11. The learned DR also states that the printing of the impugned goods in question adds value to the product and results in production of a new product, which is used in the packaging industry and in fact the same is purchased from the appellants by Parle Biscuits whose logo is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
