2018 (6) TMI 1213 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty demand, classifies products under printing category.

Print Vision Pvt Ltd., Yagnesh Vishnuprasad Pandya Versus CCE – Ahmedabad-II

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of duty and penalty. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal determined that the ... Classification of goods - printing of the items such as Books, Magazine, Posters, Letter Head, Letter Pad, Envelop, Calender, Flayers Receipt Book, Product Folders, News Letter, Invitation Cards, Officer Stationary, Pad, Scriber Pad, Lebel, Stickers, Non-Corrugated Box, Diary etc. - whether the product manufactured were classified under Chapter 49 of CETA, 1985 or under Chapter 48 of CETA, 1985? - Held that:- The decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, vs. Gopsons Papers Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT], is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, where it was held that As per the assessee, it is essentially printing work which is done by the assessee relating to the product in question and, therefore, the product comes under Chapter Heading 49.01 which pertains to printing. It is apparent in the instant case also the appellants are engaged solely in the activity of printing. In the case of Gopsons Papers Ltd, the items manufactured were partly printed and balance was to be printed by the user just like in the instant case in respect of all the forms. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against demand of duty and penalty due to clearance of products without central excise registration or payment of duty. Classification of products under Chapter 49 of CETA, 1985 disputed.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty for clearing products without central excise registration or payment of duty. The central issue revolved around the classification of the products under Chapter 49 of CETA, 1985. The appellant argued that the products should not be classified as stationary articles, contrary to the Commissioner's decision. The essential argument was that if printing was essential for the product, it should be considered a product of the printing industry; otherwise, it would be a product of the paper industry. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court ruling to support their position.The Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order, setting the stage for a detailed analysis by the Tribunal. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Gopsons Papers Ltd. The Supreme Court held that if the essence of the product was derived from printing, it should be classified under Chapter Heading 49.01 related to printing. The description of the manufacturing process provided clarity that printing was the primary activity undertaken by the assessee, leading to the correct classification under Chapter Heading 49.01. The Tribunal found that the appellants were engaged solely in the activity of printing, similar to the situation in the Gopsons Papers Ltd. case. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the decision in the Gopsons Papers Ltd. case applied directly to the present case.Based on the Supreme Court precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of the nature of the manufacturing process and the essence of the product in determining the correct classification under the relevant chapter of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.This comprehensive analysis of the issues and the application of legal principles from relevant precedents led to the favorable outcome for the appellants in this case.