Printing on steel sheets deemed manufacturing, not under Heading 7210.30, nil duty rate applied.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI held that printing steel sheets constitutes manufacturing and classified the printed sheets under Chapter 49 with a nil duty rate, not under Heading 7210.30. The Tribunal determined that the printing activity qualifies as manufacture and that the duty demand under Heading 7210.30 was unsustainable. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, relieving the appellant of duty demand and penalties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of printing steel sheets amounts to manufactureRs.
2. Whether the printed sheets would attract central excise duty under Heading No. 7210.30 of the TariffRs.

Issue 1: Activity of Printing Steel Sheets as Manufacture

The appellant, a manufacturer of tin containers and printed sheets, received tin plated steel sheets from customers for printing as per specifications. The department contended that printing steel sheets constitutes manufacturing, leading to a duty demand. The Addl. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that printing on cut-to-size sheets does not amount to manufacture, and the printed sheets should be classified under Chapter 49 with a nil duty rate, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal noted that the printing conveys information, making the printed sheets products of the printing industry. Referring to precedent cases, the Tribunal held that printed sheets fall under Chapter 49, not Heading 7210.30, where the duty rate is nil. Consequently, the printing activity qualifies as manufacture, and the duty demand under Heading 7210.30 was deemed unsustainable. Thus, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Central Excise Duty on Printed Sheets

The crucial question was whether the printed sheets would attract central excise duty under Heading No. 7210.30 of the Tariff. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the printing activity, emphasizing that the printed sheets were products of the printing industry conveying information. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the printed sheets should be classified under Chapter 49 with a nil duty rate, not under Heading 7210.30. By classifying the printed sheets as a product of the printing industry, the duty demand under Heading 7210.30 was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Shri Rakesh Kumar, resolved the issues by determining that the activity of printing steel sheets constituted manufacture and that the printed sheets should be classified under Chapter 49 with a nil duty rate, not under Heading 7210.30. The decision was based on the nature of the printing activity and relevant case law, ultimately setting aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant.

---