1988 (1) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Imported rubber blankets for textile printing not eligible for concessional rate. Incorrect interpretation of 'printing industry'

The Tribunal held that rubber blankets imported for textile printing did not qualify for the concessional rate under Notification No. 169/77-Cus. The ... Printing of imported rubber blankets Issues Involved1. Applicability of Notification No. 169/77-Cus. for rubber blankets used in textile printing.2. Interpretation of the term 'printing industry' in the context of the notification.3. Commercial understanding of the term 'industry' and its application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Applicability of Notification No. 169/77-Cus. for Rubber Blankets Used in Textile Printing:The respondents imported Darey Concard blankets, claiming the benefit of Notification No. 169/77-Cus., which provided a concessional rate of duty for rubber blankets used in the printing industry. The Assistant Collector denied this benefit, arguing that the goods were for the textile industry, not the printing industry. The Collector (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the term 'printing industry' was broad enough to include textile printing. The Revenue appealed against this finding, asserting that textile printing does not fall under the 'printing industry' as intended by the notification.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Printing Industry':The learned S.D.R. for the Department argued that the rubber blankets were used in both printing presses and textile printing units, but the specifications differed. He emphasized that the benefit under Notification No. 169/77-Cus. was intended only for rubber blankets used in the printing industry, not the textile industry. The notification was later superseded by Notification No. 192/78, which broadened the scope to include printing on any surface. However, this later notification could not be applied retrospectively.The respondents' advocate argued that the term 'printing industry' should include textile printing, citing the Tribunal's decision in Metagraphs Private Limited, which recognized that printing covers textile fabrics. He also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which stated that the term 'industry' should be understood in its ordinary commercial sense.3. Commercial Understanding of the Term 'Industry' and Its Application:The Tribunal examined various definitions of 'printing' and 'printing industry' from sources like the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Webster's Third New Dictionary, and the New Encyclopaedia Britannica. These definitions indicated that printing is not limited to paper but includes textiles and other surfaces. However, the Tribunal noted that different sectors of the industry have distinct identities based on their products, even if the processes are similar.The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized that the term 'industry' should be interpreted in its commercial sense. The Tribunal concluded that the printing of textiles is part of the textile industry, not the printing industry, as understood in commercial parlance. The printing of textiles is a finishing process within the textile industry, and therefore, the imported rubber blankets used for textile printing do not fall under the scope of Notification No. 169/77-Cus.ConclusionThe Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in including textile printing within the ambit of the 'printing industry.' The imported rubber blankets meant for textile printing were not eligible for the concessional rate under Notification No. 169/77-Cus. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was set aside, and the order of the Assistant Collector was restored, thereby allowing the appeal by the Revenue.