Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Tanzeem Screen Arts Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Demand of excise duty - Manufacture of parts of illuminated signs classifiable under sub-heading 9405.90 of the CETA, 1985 attracting duty @18% - Appellant argued that sheets printed by them do not have any lighting source attached to it, they are merely sheets for which printing is done whereas respondent argued that earlier in the case of appellants themselves, the goods have been classified under Tariff heading 9405.90 - Held that:- by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f illuminated signs classifiable under sub-heading 9405.90 of the CETA, 1985 attracting duty @18%. However, they had classified these goods under sub-heading 4901.90. The demands were confirmed by the Commissioner observing as under: "In this case printed sheets manufactured by TSA have altogether different function. The sheets used by TSA are of high glossy nature and on printing gives photographic effect. These sheets are of high costs and in particular used for illuminated sign boxes or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m for exhibiting advertisement, therefore, the product of TSA is not merely incidental appendage to tin box or hoarding but a distinct item for glow sign box or hoarding. Hence, this product in question is classifiable under heading 9405 attracting duty @ 18% advalorem and cannot be considered as the product of printing industry under Chapter 49 as contested by TSA." 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that in the case of Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2001 (131) E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l not cease to be printing. The answer posed to the question that the Commissioner frames in paragraph 27 is therefore that the goods are products of the printing industry. In that case, they would not be classifiable under heading 94.05, since there are included elsewhere in the tariff. 2.1 The appellant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt Ltd. - 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: '9. It wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

seen above, it is the printing on the aluminium sheet, which communicates the message to the buyer that makes the sheet as a label, unlike a carton printed or plain which always remained a carton. 10. The label announces to the customer that the product is or is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the prod .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and further the test of trade having understood this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products of the printing industry. 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 with reference to facts of each case. A general test is neither advisable nor practicable. W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

incidental, Note 10 to the chapter would continue to apply. The exception would be made only where such printing is not incidental to the primary use of the goods, but is of a nature which contributes something more than incidental printing. In the cited case, the Supreme Court observed that the printed label announced to the customer whether the product was or was not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. In this case, the printing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Updates     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version