Appeal denied for exemption under Notification 66/82-C.E. Boxes not printed as per definition.

The appeal was rejected, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the boxes were printed and did not qualify for the exemption, based on the dictionary definition of printing and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claim of trade parlance. The Vice President concurred with the decision, emphasizing the appellants' failure to prove the material was commercially considered unprinted and the insufficiency of letters from customers without additional evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E.
2. Definition and classification of "printed" versus "unprinted" boxes.
3. Application of trade parlance versus dictionary meaning.
4. Validity of the Dy. Chief Chemist's report.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E.:
The core issue was whether the "solid fibre board" boxes manufactured by the appellants qualified for exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Assistant Collector had initially denied the exemption, stating that the boxes were printed, not unprinted, and thus did not qualify for the exemption. This decision was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) and subsequently challenged by the appellants. The Tribunal, after reconsideration, upheld the denial of exemption, noting that the boxes had a printed pattern and thus did not meet the criteria for unprinted boxes as specified in the notification.

2. Definition and classification of "printed" versus "unprinted" boxes:
The appellants argued that the boxes were considered unprinted in the market as they did not display any literature, alphabets, marks, or symbols. However, the lower authorities and the Tribunal relied on the dictionary meaning of "printing," which includes any impression or stamp on a surface. The Tribunal noted that the gravure printing on the boxes created a clear pattern and design, thus classifying them as printed boxes. The Tribunal referenced the Oxford Dictionary and technical definitions from sources like S.B. Sarkar's Words and Phrases of Central Excise & Customs to support this classification.

3. Application of trade parlance versus dictionary meaning:
The appellants contended that the classification should be based on trade parlance, where the boxes were considered unprinted. They provided letters from four parties to support this claim. However, the Tribunal found these letters insufficient as they did not provide a detailed rationale. The Tribunal emphasized that while trade parlance can be considered, the dictionary meaning was appropriate in this context. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants failed to provide any commercial literature or advertising material to substantiate their claim that the boxes were considered unprinted in the trade.

4. Validity of the Dy. Chief Chemist's report:
The Dy. Chief Chemist's report, which stated that the sample was printed on one side, played a crucial role in the decision. The appellants did not challenge this report effectively. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not provide any evidence to counter the report's findings. The Tribunal also highlighted that the understanding of the term "printing" as per the dictionary was consistent with the findings of the Dy. Chief Chemist.

Separate Judgment by Vice President:
The Vice President concurred with the main judgment but added that the appellants failed to prove that the material was commercially considered unprinted despite the visible pattern. The Vice President emphasized that merely producing letters from customers was insufficient without additional evidence such as commercial literature or market surveys. The Vice President also noted that the appellants, being manufacturers of both printed and unprinted boxes, had not provided sufficient proof that the samples shown represented the material in question.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 66/82-C.E. was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that the boxes were printed and did not qualify for the exemption, based on the dictionary definition of printing and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the appellants' claim of trade parlance.

---