TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.90. Printing of the duty paid GI paper - Manufacture Or Not - It is well-settled that mere change of tariff classification from one heading to another, in this case, from 48.05 to 48.11, would not make the product excisable unless the process meets the test of manufacture. We find that there are decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR, which have held similar goods such as wrappers for soap, wrappers for biri and printed PVC sheets to be manufactured goods on account of printing. However, the decisions cited by the learned Advocate mainly the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass [ 1997 (12) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT] , and decision in the case of Printorium [ 1999 (2) TMI 674 - SC ORDER] , which has been uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decision in the case of ITC Ltd. [ 2004 (2) TMI 95 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court hold that printing of glass bottles, aluminium foils, paperboard respectively do not result in manufacture of new commodity. We have also kept in view arguments from both sides in the context of classification of the impugned product that the printing is incidental and primary use of GI printed pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 input duty credit and assessment on the basis of cum-duty price if the impugned goods are held to be dutiable under sub-heading 4811.90. 4. It now remains for us to consider the other two points made by the appellants. We first take the issue of classification of the impugned goods. The department's contention is that the same should be classified under sub-heading 4811.90, whereas the contention of the appellants is that the same should be classified under sub-heading 4901.90 as a product of the printing industry. 5. The appellants have cited the following decisions in support of their claim :- (i) Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) - In this decision, the Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 appellants own case on printing of plastic films, now cannot demand duty on printed paper rolls. 7. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, learned DR appearing for the department, on the other hand, states that classification of a product is to be according to description of the Heading and the Interpretative Rules and that a heading which is more specific, is to be preferred to a general heading and in this connection he also cites the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (SC). He goes on to say that the description under Heading 48.11 is more specific to the impugned goods as it describes paper, paperboard etc. which are printed in rolls or sheets. In this connection, he also brings our attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 regular Bench for deciding the same. (vi) CCE, Aurangahad v. Caprihans India Ltd. - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 240 (Tri-Mum) - In this case, the Tribunal has decided that printing PVC sheets with designs and pictures to enhance its beauty would not make such goods fall under Chapter 49 as product of the printing industry as printing was only incidental to primary use of table covering, shower curtain etc. The learned DR states that the Tribunal has referred to Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 39 and has come to the conclusion that printed sheets would continue to fall under Chapter 39 and not under Chapter 49. 9. We have considered arguments from both sides as well as the disputed Tariff entries, Interpretative Rules as well as the cited case laws. We find that the descript ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 this regard that the product in question is made only for Parle Biscuits Ltd. and since their name and logo are printed, the same has no market where it can be bought or sold. On the issue of manufacture, it is his contention that since printing the design and logo is held to be not imparting the primary function, the product should be held to be non-excisable. He cites the following decisions in support of his contention: - (i) CCE, Madras v. Paper Products Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (SC) - In this case, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that printing of a name by the job worker on a film which is then utilised for the purposes of packaging does not amount to manufacturer. (ii) Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (SC) - The Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 also printed on the printed papers. 14. We have considered arguments from both sides as well as the case laws cited before us. As we have observed earlier, it is well-settled that mere change of tariff classification from one heading to another, in this case, from 48.05 to 48.11, would not make the product excisable unless the process meets the test of manufacture. We find that there are decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR, which have held similar goods such as wrappers for soap, wrappers for biri and printed PVC sheets to be manufactured goods on account of printing. However, the decisions cited by the learned Advocate mainly the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass (cited supra), and decision in the case of Printorium (cited supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
