1995 (2) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

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 ... Exemption under Notification No. 66/82-exclusion of printed boxes - Gravure printing as a form of printing - Meaning of 'printing' (dictionary/technical meaning vs trade parlance) - Trade parlance/common commercial understanding - Burden of proof on the assessee to establish trade usage - Admissibility and evidentiary value of uncorroborated opinion lettersExemption under Notification No. 66/82-exclusion of printed boxes - Gravure printing as a form of printing - Meaning of 'printing' (dictionary/technical meaning vs trade parlance) - Whether the solid fibre board boxes were 'printed' and therefore excluded from the exemption under Notification No. 66/82. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found on the material before it, including the sample and the Dy. Chief Chemist's report, that the board used for the boxes bore a visible printed pattern and that gravure printing falls within the meaning of 'printing'. The authorities appropriately referred to dictionary and technical definitions of 'printing' to determine whether the visible pattern amounted to printing; such meaning is permissible when understanding the term 'printing' is the question rather than broader classification. The samples produced in court showed colour and design applied by gravure process; technical sources and authorities cited in the record treat gravure as a photomechanical/intaglio form of printing. In consequence the boxes come within the proviso excluding printed boxes from the notification, and the denial of exemption was upheld. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 12, 18]The product is properly characterised as printed (gravure printing being a form of printing) and is excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 66/82.Trade parlance/common commercial understanding - Burden of proof on the assessee to establish trade usage - Admissibility and evidentiary value of uncorroborated opinion letters - Whether the appellants established by trade parlance or commercial usage that the goods were treated as 'unprinted' despite the visible pattern. - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised that trade practice and common parlance are relevant when tariff terms lack definition, but placed the burden on the appellants to prove that materially similar goods were commercially regarded as unprinted. The appellants relied on letters from customers; the Court held these uncorroborated opinions insufficient because they lacked reasons, parameters, or authoritative commercial literature, and the appellants, as manufacturers of both printed and unprinted boxes, failed to produce authenticated samples or market evidence to dispel the visible printing on the material. Given the sample exhibited a clear printed pattern, the appellants did not discharge the burden to show commercial treatment inconsistent with the visible printing. [Paras 6, 19, 20, 21]Trade parlance was not established; the appellants failed to prove the goods were commercially treated as unprinted, so the claim of exemption based on trade usage is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed on merits: gravure-printed solid fibre board boxes are 'printed' and fall outside the exemption in Notification No. 66/82, and the assessee failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to prove contrary trade parlance. 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.