Printing charges on packaging material remain part of assessable value when printing is incidental to its primary use.

Printing charges incurred on B.O.P.P. film were held includible in assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the goods did not change classification merely by being cleared printed or unprinted. The valuation had to be based on the normal price at the time of removal, and there was no basis for deducting printing costs. Printing incidental to the primary use of packaging material did not alter the excisable character of the goods, so the refund claim based on a different classification was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the printing charges incurred on B.O.P.P. film were excludible from assessable value and refundable on the premise that the printed film was classifiable differently.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the classification of the goods did not change merely because the goods were cleared printed or unprinted. The assessable value had to be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of the normal price at the time of removal, and there was no basis for deducting printing charges. Reliance was placed on the principle that printing which is incidental to the primary use of packaging material does not alter the classification, and that printing and decoration costs form part of assessable value where they are done on the excisable goods.

Conclusion: The printing charges were includible in the assessable value and the refund claim was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the rejection of the refund claims was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where printing is incidental to the primary use of a packaging product, its cost is includible in assessable value under the excise valuation provisions and does not warrant a separate refund on the basis of classification.

---