TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l wrapping paper to special wrapping paper. In that sense, end use has positively been changed as a result of printing process undertaken by the assessee. Process of particular kind of printing has resulted into a product, i.e., paper with distinct character and use of its own which it did not bear earlier. Thus, the 'test of no commercial user without further process' would be applied as explained in paragraph 20 of Servo-Med Industries (2015 (5) TMI 292 - SUPREME COURT). - there has first to be a transformation in the original article and this transformation should bring out a distinctive or different use in the article, in order to cover the process under the definition of 'manufacture'. These tests are satisfied in the present case. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad For the Respondent : M/s. S. Narain Co. JUDGMENT A. K. Sikri, J. The dispute between the parties arose on two issues, viz.: (i) Whether the goods in question, i.e., printed GI paper are classifiable under Chapter heading 4811.90, as claimed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lass Industries Ltd. 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC). 6) Questioning the veracity of the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that, no doubt, paper in-question was meant for wrapping/packing of the goods of the customer but that was not the determinative factor and a vital feature/aspect which was missed by the Tribunal was that after printing the said GI paper rolls, it was used for specific purpose which was not possible with the plain paper. In support, some decisions of this Court were cited. 7) Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, argued that the approach of the Tribunal was perfectly justified which was in consonance with the principle laid down by this Court in J.G. Glass Industries (supra). According to him, the Tribunal had rightly held that the primary purpose for which GI paper is used is the wrapping/packaging and even after GI paper was printed, the essential functioning of this paper remained the same, namely, wrapping and had not changed by the process of printing. He, thus, submitted that no interference in the decision of the Tribunal was called for. 8) We have considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 (SC), was quoted which drew a line between cases in which essential character had changed and those in which no such change had taken place. 19. Interestingly, a line was drawn between cases in which the essential character had changed and those in which no such change had taken place in the following terms: 5. A large number of cases has been placed before us by the parties, and in each of them the same principle has been applied: Does the processing of the original commodity bring into existence a commercially different and distinct article? Some of the cases where it was held by this Court that a different commercial article had come into existence include Anwarkhan Mehboob Co. v. The State of Bombay and Ors. (where raw tobacco was manufactured into bidi patti), A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. v. The State of Madras (raw hides and skins constituted a different commodity from dressed hides and skins with different physical properties), The State of Madras v. Swasthik Tobacco Factory (raw tobacco manufactured into chewing tobacco) and Ganesh Trading Co. Karnal v. State of Haryana and Anr., (paddy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Examples within this group are the Brakes India case and cases where the transformation of goods having a shelf life which is of extremely small duration. In these cases also no manufacture of goods takes place. (4) Where the goods are transformed into goods which are different and/or new after a particular process, such goods being marketable as such. It is in this category that manufacture of goods can be said to take place. 10) On the facts of the present case, it is to be determined as to whether the case would fall under category (2) or category (4). We have already taken note of printing process. A cursory look into the same may suggest, as held by the Tribunal, that GI paper is meant for wrapping and the use thereof did not undergo any change even after printing as the end use was still the same, namely, wrapping/packaging. However, a little deeper scrutiny into the facts would bring out a significant distinguishing feature; a slender one but which makes all the difference to the outcome of the present case. No doubt, the paper in-question was meant for wrapping and this end use remained the same even after printing. However, whereas blank paper could be used as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
