TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used for making cartons for packaging. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1994 (7) TMI 86 – S.C.] which has also been relied upon in its above-mentioned judgment in case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that the plain carton even after printing remains a carton i.e. the product of packaging industry and they do not become the product of printing industry after printing. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the process of printing and varnish/plastic coating of plain cartons received by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such no duty is chargeable on the same. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under jobwork challans without payment of duty, where the same were used for manufacture of printed cartons. The department was of the view that the process to which the paperboard received from Baddi unit by the appellant unit was subjected, amounted to manufacture resulting in manufacture of printed/coated paperboard chargeable to duty under sub-heading 4811 59 00/4811 90 99 instead of sub-heading 4911 99 90. According to Department, since Baddi unit was availing full duty exemption in respect of printed cartons, the appellant unit was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. and was liable to pay duty on printed paperboards. On this basis, it was alleged that the appellant have evaded duty amounting to Rs. 55,25,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 9/Commr/Noida/2010-2011, dated 28-9-2010 by which the demands as made in the show cause notice were confirmed along with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 11AC. The Cenvat credit of Rs. 13,03,004/- reversed during April 2008 to December 2008 period was ordered to be adjusted towards this duty demand. 1.5 Against the above order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri B.L Narsimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the activity of printing, foiling and coating with varnish/plastic solution of the plain paperboard/sheets received from Baddi unit does not amount to manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner in it and pleaded that printing and varnish/plastic coating of plain paperboard received by the appellant from their Baddi unit amounted to manufacture and the printed and coated paperboard was chargeable to duty under Heading 4811 59 00, that printed sheets cleared to Baddi unit were chargeable to duty under sub-heading 4811 90 99, that none of these products are the product of printing industry classifiable under Heading 4911, as claimed by the appellant, that extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) has been correctly invoked and that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The point of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading 4911 in which case, the rate of duty would be nil. 7. Coming to the question as to whether the process of printing as per customer s specification and plasting/varnish coating of the paperboard either purchased by the appellant from outside or received from their Baddi unit for job work, amounts to manufacture, for this purpose the department has to lead evidence showing that by this process, a commercially new product with distinct name, character or usage has emerged. However on this point, the Commissioner in para 5.17 of the impugned order-in-original has given the following finding :- 5.17 The primary use of the goods manufactured by the party was to convert it into carton/such packing material and not more than that and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. In the present case, the plain bottles are themselves commercial commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They confirm to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purposes or are of no commercial use. 8.1 We are of the view that the above judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as in this case, admittedly, plain paperboard and printed paperboard, both can be used for making cartons for packaging. Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
