Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (11) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant are `products of the printing industry' within the meaning of Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 (hereinafter called "the Notification") issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the appellant preferred four appeals to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for different assessment periods. The Tribunal by its order dated 13-6-1986 held that the printing on the aluminium label being incidental to its use as a label or a wrapper and that being inherently not a piece of reading matter, will not fall under the above-said exemption Notification. On that view, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeals by special leave. 3.M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the ratio laid down in the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant would directly apply to the facts of this case and the distinction sought to be made on facts was without substance. It is his contention that the Tribunal has considered elaborately the facts placed before it and the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that the printing is only incidental to the use of the labels and, therefore, they cannot be treated as products of printing industry are unassailable. 5.We have considered the rival submissions. The labels in question are printed on flatbed off-set printing press and the printing is done on a deep off-set printing machine. These labels are meant to be fixed to refrigerators, radios, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e treated as products of printing industry. The Tribunal in its earlier part of the order observed that the answer to the question depends upon the conclusion whether the printing on the metal plates manufactured by the assessee was or was not incidental to the primary use of the goods. 7.In Rollatainers Ltd. case (supra), this Court was considering whether printed cartons manufactured by the appellants in that case were products of the printing industry. This Court held as follows :- "We are of the view that to a common man in the trade and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all products on which some printing is done, are the product of printing indu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per industry or printing industry. A carton is used for packing goods whether it is made or printed paper or not, and, therefore, the printing of cartons does not add to its essential function as a container. Mere printing does not make a carton. An ordinary man in the trade has no use for a printed paper, unless it can be given shape as a container in which he can pack his products. What makes it a carton is its capacity to contain which is its essential characteristic and not the printing work on it, which is merely incidental. In our view, the fact that sometimes more money may be spent on printing than other things, will make no difference." (Emphasis supplied) 9.It was argued that the trade also understood likewise. But this argument .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndustry, 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. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in concluding that the printed aluminium labels in question are not `products of printing industry'. 11.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the Collector, Central Excise are set aside and the appellants are entitled to claim exemption on the l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates