TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants themselves purchase the paper also. In all cases, content to be printed was supplied by the Biri manufacturers. Printed matter included the name of the Biri manufacturer, his logo, brand, manufacturing licence No. etc. In these facts and circumstances, the appellants submitted that they are part of printing industry only and are not manufacturing goods. They also explained that they did not manufacture "other paper, paperboard, article of paper" etc. mentioned in Chapter sub-heading 4823.19 of Central Excise Tariff. 2. Rejecting the above submissions of the appellant the impugned order has reached finding as under :- "DISCUSSION AND FINDING : I have considered both the written and oral submission of the noticee. Also I have gone through the case records and the case laws cited by the said Co. The assessee in the submission mainly contended that their printing activity on papers would tantamount to manufacture of excisable goods were not known to them. Had it been known to them they could have paid the duty due on the same. Basically the printed papers are labels falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 4821.00 and payable at "NIL" rate of duty. In support of wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e process may constitute manufacture if it brings into existence a new and different commodity". In the instant case the conversion of printed wrapper from paper is completely different from paper or paper cutting and hence tantamounts to manufacture. Further, when an article achieves commercial sense and identify, it should not go by general description. The notice inter alia stated that Biri manufacturers called the item as labels. But it is not a fact. From the record it is observed that the item is mainly used as wrapper for protection and then as label for identify. In the instant case printed wrappers have been manufactured and not the wrappers were printed. The case laws cited by the said Co. is not squarely applicable for the correct classification of the product. Going through the said Tariff Act, 1985 for the period from 1-4-94 to 31-3-99 I find that the impugned goods correctly falls under Chapter Heading No. 4823 as "other paper or paperboard cut to size" and so the product merits classification in Chapter sub-heading No. 4823.19 and chargeable to Central Excise duty." 3. Chapter sub-heading 48.23 is extracted below for convenience or discussions : - "48.23 Ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stomer's design, logo etc. as a product of printing industry under Heading 4901.90 in support of the submission that classification of the printed material in question under tariff item 48.23 is not correct. As against this, the learned DR has pointed out that this Tribunal has held in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. JEH Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1999 (108) E.L.T. 280 that printed wrappers etc. are classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.19 and therefore the classification approved in the impugned order is in conformity with the Tribunal's order. 4. Demand for duty of Central Excise can arise only upon the manufacture of goods. Duty under Chapter Heading 48.23 is attracted upon manufacture of paper, paperboard etc. In the present case, the paper on which printing is carried out is not manufactured by the appellant. That paper or paperboard is produced by somebody else. He is only carrying out printing which does not bring into existence any new product. Nor does cutting to size of the printed papers or boards. That printing does not attract duty of excise remains settled by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. The decision reads as under : - "The question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by the assessee is that of manufacture or not is based on two fold test. First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether identity of the original commodity seize to exist; secondly, whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose, but for the said process. In other wards whether the commodity already in existence will be of no commercial use, but for the said process. After observing so the Supreme Court held that the plain bottles are themselves commercial commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change and they continue to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing the bottles will serve any other purpose or are of no commercial use. It was after observing so in para 16 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held printing on the bottles does not amount to manufacture inasmuch as the non-printed bottles can also be used for the same purpose for which the printed bottles can be used. By applying the test of manufacture laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of J.G. Glass also inasmuch as the use of the bottles in both the cases remained the same i.e. filling of the aerated waters. As such it is the facts of each and every case which would decide as to whether the activity undertaken by the assessees amounts to manufacture or not. 9. I am also aware of the decisions of the Tribunal holding that printing of duty paid bare plastic film does amount to manufacture as plastic film remains plastic film even after printing. This was held in Ellora Mechanical - 1998 (98) E.LT. 109 (T); CCE, Indore v. Supreme Industries Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 465. On going through the said judgment I find that in the case of Ellora the basic purpose of the un-printed film and the printed film was the same i.e. packaging and the printing was done on the films only to enhance its beauty. As already observed in the present case the basic use of the plain paper, which is supplied to the appellant by their customers and the printed paper which emerges at their end is not identical. Whereas the plain paper can be used for any purposes as paper, the printed product emerged at the appellants' factory can only be used for a specific purpose of wrapping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each case. 11. Similarly in the case of M/s. Jhonson Jhonson Ltd. v. CCE - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.), cloth printed labels, aluminium foil printed labels, film printed labels and paper printed labels (emphasis provided) were held to be classifiable under tariff item 68 of the Erstwhile Tariff and as a product of printing industry. The Tribunal has also held in the case of CCE v. Adhunic Plastic Industries - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 365 (Tribunal) that the printed plastic sheet giving out details of commodity to enable the buyer to make a decision to purchase or otherwise are not incidental, but of primary purpose and hence such printed plastic sheets are classifiable under Chapter 49 and not under Chapter 39. The Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Sri Kumar Agencies - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483, in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Reliance Printers - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728; in the case of M/s. Rathika Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda and in the case of M/s. JEH Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 280, giving a decision on the classification of the printed papers and other printed materials are also relevant and supports the view that printing of papers and cutting them to size amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing is undertaken by them is having a different name i.e. wrappers; different use and character." 15. In view of these conflict of facts, it becomes necessary to record, after hearing both sides, the activities which are being undertaken by the appellants. From the written submissions on record filed on 18-7-2002, by the ld. Advocate for the appellants, the brief facts of the activities undertaken are as follows : - "The appellant is basically a printer, engaged in printing of, amongst others, Biri labels. The said Biri labels are printed on duty-paid paper according to the specification/design/drawings of the Customers. The printed matters contain trade mark, logo, name, address, Central Excise Registration No. etc. of Biri manufacturers. After printing, these are cut into two sizes to make big size and small size biri labels. Thereafter the biri labels are bundled for despatch." This aspect is not contested before me. I find, from the findings of the Commissioner, as recorded in extenso in Para 2 of the Order of the ld. Member (Technical), the steps in manufacturing undertaken by the said Company to be (i) Printing on the paper the matter supplied by the biri manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient evidence. If that is the position, then the appellant was liable to pay duty." In view of the same and since the test prescribed by J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. case (supra), I am of the view, that the activities carried on by the appellant would result in the attraction of Central Excise levy under Section 3 as and they amount to 'manufacture' as understood in the Central Excise law. 16. The appellants have relied upon Board Circular No. 516/12/2000-CX, dated 1-3-2000 which prescribes that printing of logo and brand name does not change the name, character and use of cigarette paper and therefore it cannot be said that after printing the end use product is manufactured and thereafter relied upon the following case laws : - Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector [1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)] Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)] CCE v. Usha Martin Industries [1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.)] However, it is found, from the records, that Board had issued another clarification vide Circular No. 42/90, dated 23-10-90 from F. No. 61/12/90-CX.4 as regards the classification of printed wrapper for wrapping soaps, cakes, chocolates etc., wherein, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailored to meet a particular requirement of law and usage than its identity should not be general description. It is found, the notice in this case, inter alia, stated that biri manufacturers called the item as labels, but it is not a fact. From the records, it is observed that the item is mainly used as wrapper for protection and for legal requirement as label for identity. From the grounds taken in appeal, I could not locate any specific challenge to the finding on facts arrived by the Commissioner. In view of my findings, I would therefore, consider the processes undertaken by the appellant to be resulting in manufacture at the appellants' premises as understood from the case law. 18. The reference is therefore answered in the above terms. The file should be placed before the Bench for decision of the appeal. Sd/- (S.S. Sekhon) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 19. In view of the majority order, printing of plain paper and cutting them to size will amount to manufacture resulting in the manufacture of biri wrappers. Inasmuch as the issue of classification was not decided, the appeal is listed for the said purpose before the Regular Bench for considering other issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
