2005 (8) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Order-in-Original No. dated date Rebate Amount 1. 138/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 1,05,040/- 2. 139/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 89,064/- 3. 140/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 62,292/- 4. 141/Ref/04, dated 30-9-2004 Rs. 16,058/- 2.2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants filed above mentioned 4 rebate claims for claiming rebate of duty paid on the goods, cleared vide the ARE-Is, mentioned in the Orders-in-Original, for export. These rebate claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the goods in question i.e., self adhesive film/papers labels, were exempt from payment of duty as product of printing industry in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n inasmuch as the apex court relied upon on its earlier decisions in respect of Printed labels of Film/paper/cloth; products falling erstwhile T.I. 68 and held that the same are entitled for exemption as products of print industry even under CETA, 1985. (d)        That the apex Court did not specifically averred that the above products are classifiable under Ch. H 4901 or for that matter fall under Ch. Sub. 4910.90 attracting Nil rate of duty. (e)        That in the case of Metagraphs P. Ltd., C.C.E. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 the Apex Court held that every products on which some printing is done is not to be treated as product of printing industry. (f)  &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement on payment of duty availing Modvat/Cenvat Credit facility without any request for provisional assessement. In view of the above the applicants requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allow rebate to the applicants. 4. The case was heard on 12-4-2005, and Sh. R.K. Sharma, Counsel, appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the applicants. He reiterated contents of their Revision Application. 5.1 Govt., has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions alongwith the cited judgments/orders. Basically the issue in this case is that the appellants are pleadings that their product is classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3919.00, attracting 16% duty. The applicants have pleaded that they have cl....