TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3008 to 3028/1999 dated 25.11.1999, disposed of 21 appeals by accepting the claim on behalf of the assessees on the issue of classification. On appeal by the department, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide their judgment dated 27.11.2008 in Civil Appeal Numbers 4872-4892/2000 reported in 2008 (232) ELT 577(SC) set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with the following observations/directions. 4. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their word....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The CEGAT also does not appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor General. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment in each case and remit the matter to CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT') to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench. In view of the aforesaid order there is no need to answer the reference made." 2.2 Similarly, Tribunal vide Final Order Nos 1056-1057 dated 8.8.2000 disposed of two appeals of Reliance Printers as reported in 2000 (122) ELT 728 and the said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.11.2008 and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision. 2.3 Similarly, Tribunal vide Final Order dated 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper was hey were subsequently cut to required sizes and sent to ITC. 6.2. Different amounts of demands have been raised for different periods and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). In the case in Appeal No. E/1252/1998, a sum of Rs. 12,12,704/- stands confirmed relating to the period 01.03.1996 to 31.07.1996 in pursuance of show-cause notice dated 09.09.1996 and in the case in Appeal No.E/1253/1998, for the period from 01.08.96 to 31.12.96, an amount of Rs. 20,84,779/- stands confirmed in pursuance of show-cause notice dated 30.01.1997. In the case in appeal No. E/1703/1999, vide the impugned order, duty of Rs. 51,53,454/-, interest @ 20% per annum, equal penalty under Section 11AC, penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) were confirmed in pursuance of show-cause notice dated 02/98. In the case in Appeal No. E/337/1999, an amount of Rs. 17,33,925/- stands confirmed vide show-cause notice dated 02.07.1997. Vijay Industries: 7.1. The appellants have undertaken printing of Agarbathi labels on PVC films and on paper. The printing undertaken indicating brand of Agarbathis, name of the manufacturer and the MRP and the printing was in four different languages namely Tamil, Kannad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the respondents vide show-cause notice dated 5.8.96. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the party and dropped the demand. Therefore, the Department is on appeal. Submissions on behalf of Assessees : 11.1 The learned Advocate Shri S. Raghu, appearing for all the assessees submit that there are 3 different products whose classifications are in dispute. In the case of M/s. Shri Kumar Agencies and M/s. Paxwell Printers, the products involved are referred to as Printed Gay Wrappers used by ITC to pack 10 packets of 20 cigarettes in consumer pack with the material printed as aforesaid. The ITC company has given orders to Laminated Packaging Ltd., who in turn, gave the raw materials in the form of Jumbo rolls and the appellants namely Sri Kumar Agencies and Paxwell Printers have undertaken the printing work as per the specifications of M/s. ITC. They have undertaken the work as job workers and supplied the final products directly to ITC. The activities of printing and cutting to size will not amount to manufacture as the raw materials and the final product are substantially the same and the end use remained the same. The final product was used fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....site Package -1999 (108) ELT 680 (vii) VST Industries Ltd. - 2005 (180) ELT 350 (Tribunal) Submissions on behalf of the Department 12.1. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings and reasoning contained in the impugned orders in favour of the department. He added that the printing activities undertaken on paper, polyetheline cotted paper and PVC films are sophisticated processes. The materials printed serve statutory requirements and also contain logo, trade marks and other important details for the purpose of identifying and promoting the products. The products which emerge after printing and the unprinted products do not serve the same purpose. 12.2 He submits that the decisions relied upon on behalf of the assessee are mostly relating to earlier tariff and they may not be applicable to the present tariff. 12.3 It is also claimed that the products emerging after printing may not deserve to be treated as products of printing industry. In this regard, reliance is being placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rolla Trainers Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 1994(72) ELT 793 (SC) and in the case ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras reported in 1998(97) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t product was held to be not a commercially known distinct product and that the product served the same purpose before and after printing. Further, the said decision related to period prior to 1980 and rendered in the context of avoiding double taxation. b. The decision dated 9.12.1997 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the UOI Vs. JJ Glass 1998 97 ELT 5 (SC) dealt with a case of printing on bottles falling under erstwhile chapter 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff. It has been held that printing on bottles did not bring into existence a new commodity which was distinct and separate in its character, use and name from the original commodity. It has been held that by the process of printing of names or logos on the bottle, the basic character of the commodity did not change and it has been further held that even without the printing the bottles would serve the purpose. c. The decision dated 5.12.1997 of the Tribunal in the case of Ellora mechanical 1998 90 ELT 109 dealt with printing on polyester films and held that it would not amount to manufacture following the decision in the case of Swastik packaging inds. d. In the decision dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessees are distinguishable. The primary use of Aluminium foil before and after printing, the primary use of bottles before and after printing remained the same and therefore, it was held that no manufacture was involved in those cases. 17.1. The printing was claimed by the assessees to be incidental to the primary use of wrapping the product. Printed paper could fall either under chapter 48 or chapter 49. When the printing is incidental to the primary use, the end product continues to fall under chapter 48. When the printing is essential and serve a definite purpose then the printed product falls under chapter 49. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine the nature and effect of printing undertaken in these cases. 17.2. In this regard, the relevant portions of the chapter sub heading 4823.19, chapter sub heading 4901.90 and the corresponding chapter notes are reproduced below:- Note 11 of Chapter 48 : 11. Except for the goods of heading No.48.14 or 48.21, paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and articles thereof, printed with motifs, characters or pictorial representations, which are not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods, fall in Chapter 49....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... definite purpose. The distinct identity and the end use is definitely imparted by the sophisticated printing of materials in different colours and material indicating information sought to be conveyed to the customers for the purpose of promoting the product and also to meet the statutory requirement. Therefore, the resultant products are to be treated as products of printing industry. 19.1 Coming to the printing activities undertaken on paper for the purpose of packing of agarbathis, it is noticed that the details printed indicated brand of agarbathis, name of the manufacturer and the MRP. The printing was in four different languages viz. Tamil, Kannada, Hindi and English. Similar printing activites were undertaken on PVC films. The resultant products are 'labels' much different from 'paper' / 'PVC films' and serve a purpose different from the paper/PVC films. 19.2. In other words, the activities of printing undertaken are essential and not incidental and serve definite purpose as claimed by the Department and, therefore, results in emergence of products with new characteristics, new names and end uses and, therefore, amount to manufacture. 19.3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtons manufactured by the assessee for organizations like Brookbond India Ltd., Lipton India Ltd. and TATA finlay ltd., could be treated as product of printing industry in the context of applying Notification No.55/1975-CE dt. 1/3/1975 applicable to the erstwhile tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Hon'ble supreme Court held that the printed cartons are to be treated as products of packaging industry with the following findings:- 11. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Divison Bench of the High Court. What is exempt under the Notification is the 'Product' of the 'Printing Industry'. The 'product' in this case is the carton. The Printing Industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence. Any amount of fancy printing on a card-board would not make it a carton. In the process of manufacturing the printed cartons, the card-board has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. Simply because there are expensive prints on the carton such a printed carton would not become the product of the Printing Industry. It shall remain the product of the Packaging Industry. In t....