Tribunal decision on book covers, printed bills, waste scrap classification

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal Versus Ruchi Printers

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal Versus Ruchi Printers - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Classification of book cover.
2. Classification of printed electricity bills.
3. Classification of waste and scrap of paper.
4. Eligibility for small-scale exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE.
5. Cum-duty benefit.
6. Reduction of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Book Cover:
The Revenue challenged the classification of the cover page of books, arguing it should fall under Heading 4820 as 'book cover,' which includes various stationery items. However, the respondent argued that these book covers are specifically printed and designed to be integral parts of books distributed by the Education Department of Madhya Pradesh Government, thus should be classified under Heading 4901. The tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 4901, noting that the book covers are indeed integral parts of the books and not merely for protection, referencing the case of CCE, Bhopal Vs. M/S Kailash Printing Press.

2. Classification of Printed Electricity Bills:
The Revenue contended that printed electricity bills should be classified under Heading 4820, arguing that the printing is incidental to the primary use. The respondent, supported by CBEC Circular No. 1052/01/2017-CE and the Tribunal’s decision in Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Ahmadabad, argued for classification under Heading 4911. The tribunal found that the electricity bills are fully printed with significant information and advertisements, thus not merely incidental. Following the precedent in Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 4911.

3. Classification of Waste and Scrap of Paper:
The Revenue claimed that waste and scrap of paper should be classified under Heading 4820. The respondent referred to the Tribunal’s decision in Universal Offsets Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, DELHI-II, where waste and scrap generated during printing were not considered excisable. The tribunal agreed, noting that the respondent is not engaged in manufacturing paper but producing printed products, thus waste and scrap arising during this process are not liable to excise duty.

4. Eligibility for Small-Scale Exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE:
The Revenue challenged the grant of small-scale exemption and cum-duty benefit, arguing that these were not claimed before the original adjudicating authority. The tribunal found no evidence that these exemptions were inadmissible and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to grant these benefits, referencing the Supreme Court’s stance that benefits can be claimed at a later stage.

5. Cum-Duty Benefit:
The tribunal upheld the cum-duty benefit granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), finding no infirmity in the decision.

6. Reduction of Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Revenue challenged the reduction of penalty to 50%. The tribunal upheld the reduction, noting that all transactions were recorded in the books of account, and invoices were duly issued, thus the charge of willful suppression could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and upheld it, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court.