TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plex Paper Board for screen printing to a job worker in a three-wheeler which was intercepted and seized by the Central Excise officers on the ground that proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 57F(4) and (6) of the Central Excise Rules was not followed; that the officers also seized carton/ boxes valued at Rs. 1,20,681/- and varnished paper valued at Rs. 2,59,065.50 which had not been accounted in the statutory records; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has ordered as under : (i) Inputs (unprinted/laminated Duplex Paper Board) cleared for printing on job work should have been removed after debiting 10% duty; (ii) Lamination and Varnishing of Paper sheets is excisable under Heading 48.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; (iii) Cost of packing is required to be added to the assessable value; 3.The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants receive orders for printed laminated/varnished paper sheets; that the lamination/varnishing is undertaken either on printed or unprinted paper sheets; that in case lamination/varnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be classified under Chapter 49 and not under Chapter 48. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions : (i) Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) (ii) Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.) (iii) Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (T) (iv) Webimpressions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 370 (T). 4.2He also stated that HSN Explanatory Notes for Chapter 48 makes it clear that Chapter 48 includes printed paper provided that the printing is merely incidental to the use of the paper for wrapping, writing, etc. and that the goods do not constitute printed matter of Chapter 49; that Note 4 to Chapter 49 of HSN and Explanatory Notes relating to Heading 49.01 of HSN make it abundantly clear that the product in question is classifiable under Heading 49.01 only. 5.1He further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that the art and development charges as well as packing charges are includible in the assessable value; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act can be imposed only in cases of fraud, collusion, etc. with intent to evade payment of duty which is conspicuously absent in the present matters; that penalty on the Directors and Manager has been imposed under Rule 209A without discussing their role in making the goods liable to confiscation and as such the same is bad in law. He relied upon the decision in G.S. Enterprises v. CCE - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 387 (T). 6.Countering the arguments, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and submitted that no material/evidence has been brought on record to show that the Appellants are mostly undertaking the printing first followed by lamination/varnishing; that the very fact that the impugned product is being sent for screen printing is sufficient to prove its marketability. He further submitted that Heading 48.11 of the Central Excise Tariff covers coated or covered paper or paper Board (printed or surface decorated); that lamination/varnishing process makes the article a different article known as laminated or varnished paper and as such the process amounts to manufacture; that packing charges are includi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a different commercial commodity comes into existence and the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist. Further, the paper without lamination/varnishing would have not served the purpose which laminated/varnished paper serve. Accordingly, the process of lamination/varnishing undertaken by M/s. NTP amounts to manufacture. We also find no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate that the products in question are not marketable. For the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty the basic requirements are that the goods should be manufactured and it should be capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. Mere fact that the product is an intermediary product is not sufficient to hold that it is not marketable. The learned Senior Departmental Representative has rightly contended that if the laminated sheets were not properly done, the same could not be sent for screen printing. The goods are not in semi-finished conditions. We also observe that the laminated/varnished goods are being sent to the job worker. This fact also goes to show that the products are capable of being brought to the market for being bought and sold. The decisions relied upon b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Once even the printed paper is subjected to the process of lamination/varnishing, it will fall under Heading 48.11. As per HSN, Impregnated papers and paperboard are used largely for protective wrapping or as insulating material. The decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate do not apply to the facts of the present matters as facts are different. In Webimpressions case, supra, the classification in dispute was of printed Gay wrapper. In the said decision, the Appellants had undertaken printing job on duty paid paper which was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90. In Metagraph's case, supra, the Supreme Court has held that printed aluminium labels are products of printing industry as the printing of the label was not incidental to its use but primary. The aspect of lamination was not involved in these decisions, as well as in Johnson & Johnson case and Sri Kumar Agencies case. We, therefore, hold that products in question are classifiable under Heading 48.11 of the Tariff. 9.The Commissioner has included packing charges in the assessable value as he has given finding that the goods are ordinarily removed from the factory in the said packing. This has not been contr....