TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 828
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anatory Note C(11) appearing on page 689 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to hold that since confectionary wrappers, food wrappers and other wrappers cut to size are included in Chapter 48 of the HSN, the printed paper wrappers in question should also be held as classifiable under Chapter 48. On the same analogy he has held that printed sleeves should also be classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90. The contention of the appellants that these two items are articles of printing industry and accordingly are more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 4901.90 of the Schedule of the CET Act, 1985 was rejected by both the authorities below. 4. We have heard both the sides in this matter. 5. The learned Advocate submits that both the articles are not products of packaging industry and their classification in the residuary sub-heading 4818.90 as 'other' under the main heading 'other articles of paper pulp, paper, paper-board, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose' fibres' is not appropriate. It is his contention that the items are prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply because there are expensive prints on the carton it would not become the product of the printing industry. It shall remain the product of the packaging industry. The Counsel submits that the Tribunal has also held the product inner slids or cigarette packets cut to size and shape from printed paper-boards are excisable goods being marketable and classifiable under sub-heading 4818.90 of CET as an 'Article of paper/paperboard'. He further points out that similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Colour Cartons Ltd. as reported in 1995 (7) RLT 169, wherein following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. the Tribunal has held that printed wrappers; printed/unprinted polybags and printed and Unprinted Cello/Poly and Cello/Cello laminates in reels are not the products of the printing industry but they are the products of packaging industry and hence the benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 cannot be extended. It is his contention that the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Metagraphs should be applied to the present case and not that of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;[Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - With due respects to Hon. Member (Judicial), my views and orders are as follows :- 8. I observe that in the case of Metagraph Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 630, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the Rollatainer's case and after doing so observed, inter alia, that "It is true that all products on which some printing is done, are not the products of printing industry. It depends upon the nature of products and other circumstances. Therefore the issue has to be decided w.r.t. facts of each case. A general test is not advisable nor practical". In the present case wrappers and sleeves are involved. But whether the wrappers or sleeves in question are products of printing industry or not have to be decided in the light of above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But no samples of the items in question have been produced before us in order to judge whether the product had come into existence prior to printing and printing was merely incidental or the product comes into existence as an advertising material&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r wrapping various articles such as soaps, etc., while printed sleeves are meant for packing multi colour crayon sticks, by using it as a sliding sleeve over a paper-board tray containing crayon colour sticks. Both products are printed with pictorial representations indicating the identification of the goods and particulars like name of product, brand name, manufacturer's name are printed on the products, as seen from the order of the lower appellate authority. It is not the case of the appellants that the products came into existence prior to printing. The products can serve the purpose of wrapping and packing even without being printed. Hence the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 793 (S.C.) in which it has been held that printed cartons are products of packaging industry and not of the printing industry is directly applicable to the facts of this case. Further, I find that in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Colour Cartons Ltd. reported i....