TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 4901.90 as according to them, it does not come under sub-heading 4818.12 or 4818.13 as was held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessee respondent are the manufactures of various types of articles of paper namely labels, dairies, folders, wrappers, covers etc. A classification list was filed by them claiming the product under sub-heading 4901.90 as items of printing industry and the claim Nil rate of duty. A Show Cause Notice dated 9-9-1986 was issued to the assessee respondent as to why the product in question could not be assessee and classified under Chapter 48. A reply was given by the respondent. The Assistant Collector by order 66/87, dated 10-8-1987 held that the product in question was on item coming under sub-heading 4818.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and assessed to duty at the rate of 12% and not under sub-heading 4901.90. Incidentally there were other products manufactured by the respondent some of which were classified by the Assistant Commissioner under sub- heading 4818.90 and some were classified under sub-heading 4901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondent filed on appeal before the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riff. He would urge that the product cannot be turned as a wrapper, but a product of the printing industry. He would emphatically state that the decision of the Supreme Court in Rollatainers case (Supra) could not be applicable to the fact of the case as in the case before the Supreme Court Carton was the subject in dispute and in this case printing papers are in dispute. He would further state that the difference between wrapper and carton are that in case on hand the Chocolate is covered on all sides by Aluminium foil and over that the printed paper covered length wise product in the colour required by the Chocolate manufacturer namely Cadbury's. Moreover the wrapper is open on both sides so it cannot be equated with carton which is enclosed on all sides. The Chocolate slides through the printed material, hence the facts are different. He would also argue emphatically that it would come only within the term "other products of the printing industry", as contained under Heading 4901 and this will come within sub-heading 4901.90 other. The impugned order he would argue therefore, that the finding made thereunder without any reason is nonest in law. He would further argue that the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....67) ECR 692 has explained the judgment of Rolla Tainers case (Supra) and held that Rolla Tainers case will be applicable to cartons as well as materials used for packaging purposes. We quote the judgment. The short question which we are required to consider in the instant case is whether unwaxed printed paper cut into sheets and reels according to the needs of the Customer for the purpose of being used as a wrappers in packaging can be said to be product of printing industry so as to attract the exemption granted under Notification No. 63/82, dated 28-2-1982. The issue stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rollatainers Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India - 1996 (62) E.C.R. 274 (S.C.). In paragraph 11 of the said Judgment this Court held that the exemption Notification could not apply to material which is used for packaging purpose even if something is printed thereon. It would still be described as a product belonging to the packaging industry and not printing industry. We therefore hold that the view taken by the Tribunal need to be reversed. (Emphasis Supplied) This judgment squarely answers the argument of the ld. Counsel. 9. It would be relevant to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... industry". 10. In this case the printed paper is the wrapper used as such with gum or paste applied on both sides of the paper wraps the chocolate. The printed matter is incidental to the act or function of wrapping the Chocolate. 11. We would also refer to the case decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) = 1996 (17) R.L.T. 621 (S.C.). In that case Supreme Court considered the question whether labels printed on flat off set printing press and that printing is done on deep offset printing machine is to be treated as an object of printing industry or not and eligible for exemption under Notification 55/75, dated 1-3-1975. There the Supreme Court held, after referring to Rolla Tainers case (Supra) that the product was of printing industry and distinguished Rollatainers case. But it must be emphasised that in this case product is a paper wrapper i.e. packaging product and it is not attached on fixed on the other product. In the case of Metagraphs case (Supra) the other product is Refrigerator on which the label was fixed or attached (please see para 7) of the Judgment, whereas....