Aluminium labels not printing industry products; assessed at standard rate.

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, determining that the printed aluminium labels were not considered products of the printing industry. Therefore, the labels should be assessed at the standard rate under tariff item 68 without the exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary purpose of the labels was for product identification, with the printed matter being incidental, akin to printed packaging materials, and not qualifying them as products of the printing industry.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of printed aluminium labels under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1-3-1975.
3. Interpretation of "products of the printing industry."

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Printed Aluminium Labels under Central Excise Tariff
The core issue revolves around the classification of printed aluminium labels. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, revised the assessment of the Assistant Collector, who had initially classified the goods under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff at nil rate of duty based on Notification No. 55/75-CE. The Collector argued that the labels served only the purpose of displaying the name of the manufacturers and the name of the product and were not related to the printing industry, thus directing assessment under item 68 without exemption.

2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE
The appellants contended that their products, being printed aluminium labels, should be considered as products of the printing industry and thus eligible for exemption under serial No. 13 of Notification No. 55/75-CE. They argued that the exemption covers all products of the printing industry, not just some, and that their labels, which are printed on metal, should qualify. The department, however, maintained that the printed matter on the labels was only for advertisement and did not qualify as products of the printing industry.

3. Interpretation of "Products of the Printing Industry"
The appellants argued that the primary purpose of the labels is served by the printed matter they carry, and not their material composition. They emphasized that the printing on the labels is not incidental but the sole purpose that gives them utility. The department countered this by stating that the printed matter is merely incidental to the primary use of the labels, which is to serve as a nameplate or identification for various products.

The Tribunal examined various definitions and interpretations of "printing" and "products of the printing industry." They noted that the term "printing" involves impressing or stamping a surface with a figure or pattern and that the products of the printing industry include printed books, newspapers, pictures, and other similar items. The Tribunal concluded that the printed aluminium labels do not fall under the category of products of the printing industry as defined in Chapter 49 of the Harmonized Tariff.

The Tribunal also considered the primary use of the goods. They found that the primary purpose of the printed aluminium labels is to be affixed permanently to products like bicycles, radios, air conditioners, etc., to communicate information about the product. However, they concluded that this communication is incidental to the primary use of the labels, which is to serve as identification for the products.

Conclusion
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that the printed aluminium labels are not products of the printing industry and should be assessed at the standard rate under tariff item 68 without the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that the printed matter on the labels is incidental to their primary use, similar to printed packaging materials, and does not qualify them as products of the printing industry.

---