1997 (10) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Denied: Computer Stationery Not Exempt Under Central Excise Tariff

ROSE BUSINESS FORMS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

The appeal by M/s. Rose Business Forms regarding the classification of computer stationary under the Central Excise Tariff and eligibility for exemption ... Classification - Demand - Limitation Issues: Classification of computer stationary under Central Excise Tariff and eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E.Analysis:1. The appeal by M/s. Rose Business Forms concerns the classification of computer stationary. The Collector of Central Excise determined that the goods were classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E.2. The appellants argued that their manufacturing process did not constitute a process of manufacture and sought small-scale exemption if the value related to ruled paper was excluded.3. The respondent contended that ruled paper and computer stationary were distinct items, with the former not being the same as the paper converted into ruled paper. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision on the definition of 'product of printing industry.'4. The appellants had not filed declarations for certain years, claiming ignorance of the law. They were registered for manufacturing computer forms, telex rolled papers, and pre-printed forms, classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.5. Exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. applied to products of the printing industry, as clarified by a Supreme Court decision. The judgment emphasized that not all printed products were automatically products of the printing industry.6. The appellants' goods were classified as articles of stationery under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, specifically designed for computer and telex use. The goods were not considered products of the printing industry, as printing was incidental to their specific purpose.7. The demand for a specific period was withdrawn by the adjudicating authority, and the appellants had not filed declarations or sought approvals for classification or exemptions.8. The adjudicating authority's decision was deemed valid, considering the lack of declarations and approvals from the appellants.9. After considering all facts, the appeal was rejected due to the lack of merit.This detailed analysis addresses the classification of computer stationary under the Central Excise Tariff and the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., highlighting the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.