2017 (9) TMI 1247 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, setting aside duty demand and allowing appeal.

M/s. Mehra Computers System Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai-IV

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for duty and allowing the appeal. The disputed manifold business forms were ... Classification of goods - whether the printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms are to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 attracting 4% duty adv. from 01.03.2002 to 28.02.2003 or under Chapter Heading 4901. 90 attracting NIL rate of duty as contended by the appellant? Held that: - The Ld. Counsel has produced before us the sample copies of the manifold business forms pertaining to Table II which is under dispute. One such item is the cash certificate/fixed deposit certificate printed for a Bank. The others are Bill for Telecom, Tuticorin District, Tax invoice for S.P. Hotel &Towers, Receipt for LIC, Inland letter form for submitting voting particulars for Rane Brake Lining Ltd. etc. We are convinced that these are customized maniform business forms and cannot be sold in open market - The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2011 (9) TMI 921 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] had occasion to analyse a similar issue, where, The printed products scanned and made part of the judgement are identical in character to those placed before us. The Tribunal has observed that merely because some details are to be filled in, such customized forms cannot be excluded from Chapter 49. The products listed in Table II merit classification under Chapter 49. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention of appellant and classified items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card under Chapter 49 - when the impugned items are classified under CETH 49 would attract NIL duty and then the appellant would be well within the SSI exemption limit. The demand is therefore unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Classification of printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or 4901.90 for duty calculation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of ProductsThe appellants contested the classification of various items, arguing that computer stationery, stickers, price tags, labels, and other products should be classified under different headings. They maintained that these products were not dutiable until a specific date and should fall under Chapter Heading 4901.90, attracting a NIL rate of duty. They emphasized that the printing on the products did not change the character of the paper and should be considered products of the printing industry under Chapter 49.Issue 2: Legal ArgumentsThe appellants presented several legal arguments to support their classification claims. They referenced relevant HSN notes and Chapter 48 and 49 notes to assert that the printed products were customized and not marketable goods, thus falling under Chapter 49. Additionally, they cited a Board Circular and a Tribunal decision to strengthen their position that customer-specific printing warranted classification under Chapter 49.Issue 3: Limitation of ProceedingsThe appellants raised a plea regarding the limitation of the proceedings, highlighting that there was a significant delay between the completion of the investigation and the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. They argued that the delay impacted the validity of the proceedings.Issue 4: Adjudication and DecisionAfter hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined sample copies of the disputed manifold business forms. They referenced a previous Tribunal decision to analyze the issue further. The Tribunal concluded that the products in dispute should be classified under Chapter 49, attracting NIL duty. They emphasized that the customized nature of the forms and the printing's significance supported this classification. As a result, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demand for duty and allowing the appeal based on the classification of the printed products under Chapter 49.