TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Amount 1. 138/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 1,05,040/- 2. 139/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 89,064/- 3. 140/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 62,292/- 4. 141/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 16,058/- 2.2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants filed above mentioned 4 rebate claims for claiming rebate of duty paid on the goods, cleared vide the ARE-Is, mentioned in the Orders-in-Original, for export. These rebate claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the goods in question i.e., self adhesive film/papers labels, were exempt from payment of duty as product of printing industry in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products falling erstwhile T.I. 68 and held that the same are entitled for exemption as products of print industry even under CETA, 1985. (d) That the apex Court did not specifically averred that the above products are classifiable under Ch. H 4901 or for that matter fall under Ch. Sub. 4910.90 attracting Nil rate of duty. (e) That in the case of Metagraphs P. Ltd., C.C.E. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 the Apex Court held that every products on which some printing is done is not to be treated as product of printing industry. (f) That when the printing is incidental to the use the products is classifiable under Ch. H 3919.00 as per Note 2 to Section VII and attract 16% adv duty. However, when the printing is not merely i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tents of their Revision Application. 5.1 Govt., has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions alongwith the cited judgments/orders. Basically the issue in this case is that the appellants are pleadings that their product is classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3919.00, attracting 16% duty. The applicants have pleaded that they have claimed no exemption from the payment of Central Excise duty on the impugned goods as per the cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Johnson Johnson Ltd. - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 166 (S.C.). The applicants have pleaded that they have cleared the impugned goods from their manufacturing unit after payment of appropriate Central Excise duty for export and the impugned goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
