TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Anti-evasion, Hyderabad-III, Commissionerate, the department conducted investigation and came to the conclusion that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing Printed Gay Wrappers classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.90 as other articles of paper without payment of duty and without following the central excise procedures. Therefore three show cause notices covering the period from 23-4-01 to 12-6-02 were issued to the appellants. The Commissioner in his OIO 22/02 dated 30-8-02 decided that the appellants are the manufacturers of gay printed wrappers which are classifiable under chapter sub-heading 4823.90. Duty of Rs 1,29,13,866/- was confirmed under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned goods is decided, all the other questions can be answered on the basis of the correct classification. The appellants claim classification of the product under chapter 4901 as products of printing Industry. If the appellants' claim is accepted, then the products carry nil rate of duty and no duty can be demanded. The penalties imposed also will not be sustained. On the other hand, if the department's position is upheld, the appellants would be liable to pay duty under Chapter heading 48.23 and also will be liable for interest and penalties, etc. 3. Smt. Shoba L. Chary learned JCDR appeared for the department and Shri R. Sasidharan, Sr. Advocate and Smt. L. Maithili, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants. 4. The depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t namely printed gay wrapper is classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as printed product and not under sub-heading 4823.90 as contended by the Revenue. The above decision of the CEGAT was challenged by the Revenue in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court [upheld the decision of the CEGAT classifying the goods as products of printing industry. Moreover she contended that the appellants are not the manufacturers of the impugned products and if at all there is any manufacture the job workers only should be liable. 7. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the classification of gay wrapper has already been decided by the Tribunal in the cases quoted above. The decision of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
