TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted poly films and printing of unlaminated calendars on job work basis. As per the Revenue, the said activity of printing as also of printing and lamination amounts to manufacture and as such, the appellants were required to pay the duty on the same. Accordingly, duty stand confirmed by invoking the longer period of limitation. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that the process of printing on film does not amount to manufacture. Specific attention stands drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE v. Paper Products Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (S.C.)]. In the alternative, he has submitted that even if the printing is held to be amounting to manufacture, the final product would fall under Chapter 49, as a product of printing industry, which attract nil rate of duty. For the said proposition, he relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. J.J. Enterprises v. CCE, Meerut-I vide Final Order No. A/56511/2013, dated 4-6-2013 [2013 (295) E.L.T. 324 (T)] wherein the printing of the sheets with customers brand name and other information on the tin pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as fair offer. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of pronouncement of order, subject to which the pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of interest and penalty would stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal before Tribunal. Matter to come up for ascertaining compliance on................(sic) (Pronounced in the open Court on     ) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) 7. [Per : Manmohan Singh, Member (T)]. - I have gone through stay order recorded by Hon'ble Judicial Member Smt. Archana Wadhwa. After considering all the submissions made by learned Counsel Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran and the judgment of Apex Court cited by him in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.)] as well as decision of Tribunal in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. v. CC & CE, Noida [2012 (285) E.L.T. 76 (Tri.-Del.), learned Member (Judicial) has ordered for further deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs in addition to Rs. 40 lakhs already deposited against tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed above. 10. Scrutiny of various records and other evidences (statements tendered by party) etc. reveals that the principal manufacturers were not registered under Central Excise and were neither paying Central Excise duty on the goods received from party No. 1 nor they were using the same in the manufacturing of dutiable goods. Further they were not following the procedure of job work prescribed under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Varanasi, vide letter C. No. V(15)Sez/EPPL/Tech/97/2010, dated 9-8-2011, have informed that the suppliers of raw materials (for whom party No. 1 have done so called job work) have never given undertaking as provided under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. Accordingly, the goods manufactured by party No. 1 on so called job work basis, are not exempted from payment of duty. 11. Shri Atul Goel, Managing Director of the unit who was having overall control over the activity of the unit admitted that they were undertaking manufacturing activity without obtaining Central Excise registration and clearing the goods without payment of excise du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted PVC films/sheets have a new commercial indentity of their own and correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3920.19 ibid [1990 (49) E.L.T. (S.C.)]. 14. In the present case before us when a bare plastic film is taken and it is printed as per specification of the product which are to be packed and laminated then a product having distinct name, character and use emerges. Now at this stage it is not a film. Rather it is a product ready to use for packing of goods whose brand/monogram and specifications are printed on it. Therefore, the piecemeal plea of the party that lamination does not amount to manufacture as final product is printed material exempt under Chapter 49 is not at all sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I hold that during the impugned period printing/printing and lamination of the plastic film amounts to manufacture because a new product having distinct name, character and use emerges. Even after manufacture the goods may be classified under the same sub-heading as evident from the Chapter note 16 of Chapter 39 that lamination shall amount to manufacture but even after lamination the film will be classified under the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. do not help in any way at least in this matter. In the case of Matagraphs Pvt. Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para 10 held as under: "10. The label announces to the customer that the product is or is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. This Court in Rollatainers case held that "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". Let us apply this above formula to the facts of this case. The "product' in this case is the aluminium printed label. The printing industry has brought the label into existence. That being the position and further the test of trade having understood this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products of the printing industry. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Member (Judicial) DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Whether activity of lamination and printing amounts to manufacture in view of judgment of Tribunal in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd relying upon Supreme Court judgment reported in 2012 (285) E.L.T. 76 (Tri.-Del.) and Supreme Court judgment in Metagraph Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) and whether in view of findings of clearance of goods without payment of duty, enhanced pre-deposit of Rupees one crore is to be deposited as held by Member (Technical) OR Whether activity amounts to manufacture or the same should be considered exempt based on prima facie basis on submissions made by learned Counsel relying upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Metagraph Pvt. Ltd. and Tribunal's decision in Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. being product of packaging industry and accordingly pre-deposit of Rupees twenty lakhs will be sufficient in the overall circumstances of the case as held by Member (Judicial) including limitation aspect. Sd/- (Manmohan Singh) Member (Technical) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) 22. [Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The following difference of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Paper Product Ltd., reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (S.C.) and Meltax (I) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.). Therefore, he prays that the order of Member (Judicial) directing pre-deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs be accepted and stay order may be passed accordingly. 24. On the other hand, learned AR appearing on behalf of Revenue opposed the contention of the learned Counsel submitting that each case is having its own facts and circumstances. Therefore, the case law relied upon by learned Counsel are to be seen in that context only. He further submits that the decision in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is similar to the facts of this case as in this case printing and lamination both the activities entertained by the applicant are met out and this Tribunal has held that the process of printing and lamination changes the character of the bare polyester film. Therefore, a new product emerges. Hence, the activity amounts to manufacture. He further submits that Hon'ble Member (Technical) in Para 11 of referral order has rightly recorded that Shri Atul Goel, M.D. in his statement dated 7-7-2011 has stated that they are not doing merely pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aracter or usage has emerged. However on this point, the Commissioner in para 5.17 of the impugned order-in-original has given the following finding :- "5.17 The primary use of the goods manufactured by the party was to convert it into carton/such packing material and not more than that and the act of printing/coating was merely in relation to such use and not more than that. In my view, even without being subjected to printing and coating, the plain coated paper could be converted into carton/such packing material and be put to the use in the same manner, as a printed carton is used. In such circumstances, it can be said that the act of printing was merely incidental to the primary use and hence the resultant product obtained after the act of printing remained covered by Chapter 48". Thus even per the Commissioner's findings, even after the process of printing and plastic/varnish coating of paperboard, the basic character and use of the product has not changed and paperboard, whether plain or printed and coated is used for the same purpose, i.e. making of carton for packaging. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glas....