TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as "labels") manufactured by the appellant are `products of the printing industry' within the meaning of Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 (hereinafter called "the Notification") issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.Aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the appellant preferred four appeals to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for different assessment periods. The Tribunal by its order dated 13-6-1986 held that the printing on the aluminium label being incidental to its use as a label or a wrapper and that being inherently not a piece of reading matter, will not fall under the above-said exemption Notification. On that view, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Henc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question are not products of printing industry and the ratio laid down in the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant would directly apply to the facts of this case and the distinction sought to be made on facts was without substance. It is his contention that the Tribunal has considered elaborately the facts placed before it and the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that the printing is only incidental to the use of the labels and, therefore, they cannot be treated as products of printing industry are unassailable. 5.We have considered the rival submissions. The labels in question are printed on flatbed off-set printing press and the printing is done on a deep off-set printing machine. These labels....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly incidental to its use and, therefore, they cannot be treated as products of printing industry. The Tribunal in its earlier part of the order observed that the answer to the question depends upon the conclusion whether the printing on the metal plates manufactured by the assessee was or was not incidental to the primary use of the goods. 7.In Rollatainers Ltd. case (supra), this Court was considering whether printed cartons manufactured by the appellants in that case were products of the printing industry. This Court held as follows :- "We are of the view that to a common man in the trade and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all products on whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....product of the packaging industry, and not a product of the paper industry or printing industry. A carton is used for packing goods whether it is made or printed paper or not, and, therefore, the printing of cartons does not add to its essential function as a container. Mere printing does not make a carton. An ordinary man in the trade has no use for a printed paper, unless it can be given shape as a container in which he can pack his products. What makes it a carton is its capacity to contain which is its essential characteristic and not the printing work on it, which is merely incidental. In our view, the fact that sometimes more money may be spent on printing than other things, will make no difference." (Emphasis supplied) 9.It was ar....