TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty. The department was of the view that they contravened the provisions of Rules, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in as much as they manufactured and cleared printed labels without assessing the duty involved thereon, without payment of duty and without issuing proper invoices for clearances of such goods during the period January 2007 to March 2011. Show cause notice was issued to the said appellant demanding Excise Duty of Rs.24,66,681/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties. The other appellants were issued show cause notices proposing to impose penalty being the parties who had supplied raw materials to the appellant. After due process of law, the original authority held that the activity undertaken by appellant is manufacture, and therefore confirmed the duty along with interest and imposed penalties. Separate penalty was imposed on other appellants. Aggrieved by such order, they filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 3. The Learned Counsel Sri K. Shankaranarayanan appeared and argued for the appellants. It is submitted that the department has not alleged in the show cause notice or stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attained character of finished goods as entire activity of manufacturing is carried out by the appellant viz; M/s.Chromaprint (India) Pvt. Ltd. As per Rule 2 (a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff the printing carried out by the appellant amounts to 'manufacture'. The said rule reads as under : "2 (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (of falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled" 6. It is submitted by Ld. A.R that after the printing, the incomplete and unfinished paper board, tags etc. attain the essential character of the complete or finished article, and therefore the activity amounts to 'manufacture'. Further, the goods are classifiable as 'Printed Cards' falling under CETH 48211020. For these reasons, duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....printing. We find that the nature of printing carried out by the appellant does not alter the identity of the product as the paper remains as a paper only and mere printing does not amount to manufacture. In this regard Ld. Counsel relied upon the various judgments. In the case of Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that printing/decorating of duty paid glazed ceramic tile did not change their basic character namely, glazed tile and hence not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In case of Metlex (I) P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed laminating/metallising of duty paid film does not amount to manufacture. In the case of Servo-Med Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that manufacture is distinct from marketability/saleability, it takes place on application of one or more processes which may lead to a change in goods to amount to manufacture, there must be a transformation by which new and different article which has distinctive name, character or use, Every change is not manufacture. If finished product cannot conveniently be used in the form in which it happens to be, and is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. On this plea of the appellant also, the demand is not sustainable. 9. As per our above discussion, we are of the view that under the facts and circumstances, whether the product is classifiable under Chapter 4811 90 99 or under 4911 99 90 appellant is not liable to pay duty. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed." 11. In the case of HBD Packaging (P) Ltd. (supra), similar issue was considered wherein it was held that the activity of printing and plastic / varnish coating of plain paperboard as per customer's specification either purchased by assessee or received for job work does not amount to manufacture. It was held that the basic character of paper board has not changed. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. - 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC). Relevant para of the Tribunal decision reads as under : "7. Coming to the question as to whether the process of printing as per customer's specification and plastic/varnish coating of the paperboard either purchased by the appellant from outside or received from their Baddi unit for job work, amounts to manufacture, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se." 8.1 We are of the view that the above judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as in this case, admittedly, plain paperboard and printed paperboard, both can be used for making cartons for packaging. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 793 (S.C.), which has also been relied upon in its above-mentioned judgment in case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that the plain carton even after printing remains a carton i.e. the product of packaging industry and they do not become the product of printing industry after printing. 9. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the process of printing and varnish/plastic coating of plain cartons received by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such no duty is chargeable on the same. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 12. In the case of Fitrite Packers Vs CCE Mumbai (supra), the issue considered was whether the printing of duty paid GI paper amount to 'manufacture'. The Tribunal followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt para reads as under : "7. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we are required to see as to whether the printing carried out by the appellants on the coated paper board amounts to a process of manufacture? In this regard, we notice that the West Regional Bench in the case of CCE v. Supreme Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that process of printing on plain plastic film does not amount to a process of manufacture. They have followed the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217 and that of Apex Court's judgment rendered in UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Paper Products Ltd., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (S.C.) has held that printing of name on the film which is then utilized for the purpose of packaging does not amount to a process of manufacture. In view of these two judgments, we have to clearly uphold the contention of the appellant that the process of printing on the coated paper does not amount to a process of manufacture and no new commodity arises. Even otherwise, the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal in the case of Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) has held that the ....