TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,32,21,365/- for the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11 and Rs. 51,49,104/- for the period from 1st April 2011 to 31st December 2011 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 25 Central Excise Rules, 2002 respectively. Both orders have also confirmed recovery of interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The bone of contention in the appeals is excisability of books used for internal administration and record keeping in the zonal railway that were printed at zonal railway press. 2. It is the case of the central excise authorities that the activity is tantamount to manufacture rendering the goods liable to duties of central excise at the rate corresponding to sub-heading 4820 10, subject to effective rate as prescribed in the prevailing notifications, of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the goods, not being marketable and intended exclusively for internal use, are not liable to duties of central excise. It is also contended that the issue in dispute stands resolved by the decision of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orms (e.g. magazine subscription forms), blank multi-coupon travel tickets, circular letters, identity documents and cards etc. requiring only the insertion of particulars (e.g. dates and names) are classified in this heading. Thus, existence of blank portions in printed forms do not take them out of "other printed products or articles". Many are the items that readily come to mind. Most printed application forms would leave the name and other particulars of the applicant blank. Similarly, ticket forms would not have names/numbers of the buyers. In the present case also, particulars of the buyers/numbers of the lottery tickets would get printed only at the time of sale of tickets. That does not affect the character and identity of the paper rolls as blank lottery tickets. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that these rolls are not products of printing industry is not sustainable. 11. We also find that an almost identical issue, of the classification of the lottery ticket, had come up before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sai Security Printers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Faridabad - 2006 - TIOL - 398-CESTAT-Del. and that Bench held that the correct cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be used as ATM receipts, lottery tickets and bus ticket. It is the printing done on the thermal paper which has imparted these characteristics and therefore, it has to be held that printing is not merely incidental to the use of the products. Applying the ratio of the decisions cited supra, it becomes evident that the impugned goods prior to enactment of Finance Bill, 2012 merit classification as "products of the printing industry". Further, it is seen that in the Finance Bill, 2012 a specific note 14 (supra) was inserted in Chapter 48 to bring within the scope of Chapter 48 certain products of the printing industry. The said amendment introduced by way of Note 14 to Chapter 48, was only prospective and was not given any retrospective effect. This itself indicates that prior to the insertion of Note 14 to Chapter 48, the impugned products merit classification under Chapter 49. 7. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as devoid of merits. Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to a conclusion whether the product will fall under the category of "product of Printing Industry" or otherwise. Their Lordship in Para 10 has laid down the ratio which is with respect reproduced. "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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then test of marketability has to be under gone. After printing of the plain paper with the details containing therein all these forms leaflet, folders etc. can be used by Central Railway alone and it can neither be used nor shall be useful for any other person other than Central Railway. This undisputed facts is more than sufficient reason to hold that the product is not marketable because same is neither capable of being bought and sold nor can be factually bought and sold. As regard the marketability, the contention of the Revenue is that the product is commercially known in the market does not hold water for the reason that if the product in the present case since not capable being bought and sold, cannot be commercially known as marketable. We agree with the submission of ld. Sr. Counsel that Revenue has not undertaken any exercise to prove that this very product are marketable. Therefore admittedly the Revenue has not discharged the burden lies on them as regard the test of marketability of the product. The judgments in this regard relied upon by the ld. Sr. Counsel squarely applicable to the present case that if the burden of proof of marketability does not discharged by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities. In this case the appellants filed affidavits of certain concerns showing that they are not interested in purchasing 'glass lumps'. No evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by the excise authorities to show that the said goods are marketable in the sense stated above. Based on the evidence of affidavits filed by the appellant it is sought to be argued that the deponents may not be interested in purchasing 'glass lumps' but it does not disprove marketability of the goods. We are unable to accept this contention. The burden of showing that the goods are marketable is on the Revenue. In the absence of any proof brought on record by the Revenue that 'glass lumps' are marketable or capable of being marketed, it is not possible to hold that the test of marketability is satisfied. For these reasons we set aside the order of the CEGAT under challenge and allow the appeal with costs. C.A. 7114/2000 @ SLP (C) 7908/85 : Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.)] 6. This view was reiterated again in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) = (1986) 2 SCC 547 where Pathak, J. as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or 'manufactured' in India. "Excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Act means goods specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. Therefore, it is necessary, in a case like this, to find out whether there are goods, that is to say, articles as known in the market as separate distinct identifiable commodities and whether the tariff duty levied would be as specified in the Schedule. Simply because a certain article falls within the Schedule it would not be dutiable under excise law if the said article is not "goods" known to the market. Marketability, therefore, is an essential ingredient in order to be dutiable under the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 11. In view of the Appellate Collector's order dated 14-1-1974 it was the duty of the Revenue to adduce evidence or proof that the articles in question were goods. No evidence or proof was produced. The Tribunal went wrong in not applying the proper test. The test of marketability or capable of being marketed was not applied by th....