Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on printed labels classification under CETA, 1985

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the classification of printed labels, determining them to fall under Chapter Sub-Heading 4821.00 rather than 4823.90 of CETA, 1985. It was established that no manufacturing activity occurred at the Munger factory, as only cutting to size was conducted, which did not amount to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found no discrepancies in the Commissioner(Appeals) findings and granted the appellant relief, setting aside the duty demand due to the absence of manufacturing activity.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of printed labels under Chapter Sub-Heading 4821.00 or 4823.90 of CETA, 1985; Manufacturing activity at Munger factory; Discrepancy in findings of different orders by the Commissioner(Appeals).

Classification Issue:
The appellant claimed printed labels under Chapter Sub-Heading 4821.00, while the department proposed classification under 4823.90. The appellant argued that no further printing was done at Munger factory, only cutting, and that the labels were exported to Nepal without further processing. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the duty demand, considering activities at both factories. However, a subsequent order by the Commissioner(Appeals) favored the appellant, acknowledging no manufacturing activity at the Munger factory. The Tribunal noted that the goods conformed to 4821.00 classification, approved by authorities, and no duty was chargeable due to no manufacturing activity.

Manufacturing Activity Issue:
The appellant contended that only cutting to size was done at the Munger factory, not amounting to manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal agreed, citing Supreme Court decisions that cutting larger sheets does not constitute manufacturing unless a new commercial commodity emerges. The Tribunal found no new product emerged at the Munger factory, supporting the appellant's claim.

Discrepancy in Commissioner(Appeals) Findings:
The Tribunal compared findings of two orders by the Commissioner(Appeals) for different periods. The subsequent order favored the appellant, leading to a refund. The Tribunal found no discrepancies in the subsequent order's findings, which were accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant, with any consequential relief as per law.

---