TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2016 was issued; the officers entertained an opinion that the activity undertaken by the Appellants amounts to manufacture and as the turnover of the Appellants was more than Rs.4 crores in each of the Financial Year from 2010-11 to 2014-15, they were not eligible for SSI Exemption. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2016 was issued to the Appellants demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.7,16,25,246/- alongwith interest and penalty. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the impugned order dated 15.09.2017 confirming Central Excise duty of Rs.1,65,08,549/- alongwith equal penalty; appropriating Rs.15 lakhs paid by the Appellant; imposing equal penalty and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on Shri Vaibhav Bhargava, Director of the Appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri B.L. Narasiman learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand to the extent of Rs.5,50,21,697/- and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,65,08,549/- classifying the products like Printed carton and boxes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ries Ltd., 2016 (338) ELT 335 (SC) 8. Learned counsel further submits that even if the goods are held to be excisable, the benefit of job work under Notification 214/86-CE i.e. cannot be denied to them. He also submitted that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to him. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- • Fabkraft Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Excise Appeal No. 1610 of 2012 - Cestat Mumbai • Saravana colour match works versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Excise Appeal No. 42232 of 2014 - CESTAT Chennai • Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2021 (375) ELT 379 (Tri- Del) 9. Learned Counsel further submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 26.02.2016 covering the period from March 2011 to September 2015, therefore, the period from March 2011 to April 2015 is clearly barred by limitation. There was no clarity with respect to the correct classification of the product; the Department relies only on the classification of the goods under Chapter 48 whereas the Appellant holds that they are classifiable under Chapter 49 which attracts NIL rate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation), 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 368 (Del.) • Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Adj.) of S.T., New Delhi, 2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 35 (Tri. - Del.) • Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, 2023 (1) TMI 932 - CESTAT New Delhi • G.D. Goenka Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South, Final Order No. 51088/2024 dated 21.8.2023 • Continental Engines Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar (Raj.), Final Order No. 50957/2023 dated 11.7.2023 • CCE v. H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC) • Pratibha Processors v. Union of India, 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC), 10. Shri Santosh Kumar, learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 11. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 12. We find that the Appellants are engaged in printing cartons, sheets, labels etc. It is not the case of the Department that the Appellants have the machinery wherewithal to manufacture excisable products classifiable under Section 48 or Section 49. The only allegation by the Department on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to consider similar issue. It was held that merely because the goods are classifiable under a particular tariff heading, it cannot be said that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the nature of printing of images on paper would amount to 'manufacture'. Relevant paragraph reads as under : "7. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant have carried out the printing process on the already manufactured papers. The department's contention is that the printed paper is classifiable under CETH 4811 90 99 and liable to duty. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the printing of already manufactured paper do not amount to manufacture, therefore, the printed paper is not liable to duty being non-manufactured goods in terms of Section 2(f). We find that the department has demanded duty with a view that the appellant have manufactured printed paper, however appellant have not manufactured paper, they have only carried out the process of 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) E.L.T. 519 (Guj.) • Variety Lumbers P. Ltd. - 2018 (360) E.L.T. 790 (S.C.). • Castings (India) Ltd. - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 343 (Jhar.) The Ld. Counsel has made alternative submission that even if the process is considered to be a process which amount to manufacture, the printed base paper will merit classifiable under Chapter 49, hence no duty is payable on end product. In this regard, we find that the relevant Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 49 is reproduced below : ''2. For the purposes of Chapter 49, the term "printed" also means reproduced by means of a duplicating machine, produced under the control of an automatic data processing machine, embossed, photographed, photocopied, thermocopied or typewritten." From the above chapter note, it is clear that any printed paper if amount to manufacture, the same is correctly classifiable under Chapter Note 49 and the most appropriate Central Excise Tariff Heading shall be 4911 99 90 which attracts nil rate of duty. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while holding that printing of plain glass bottles does not amount to manufacture, has in para 16 of the judgment observed as under - ''16. On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two fold test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of "manufacture". First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; secondly, whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose, but for the said process. In other words, whether the commodity already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. In the present case, the plain bottles are themselves commercial commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They confirm to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purposes or are of no commercial use." 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of GI printed paper roll is for wrapping, which is not changed by the process of printing. Hence following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass (cited supra), we are of the view that if the impugned printed products are produced in the same factory, where paper is produced, it would be chargeable to duty under Heading 48.11, whereas in this case, the appellants have bought duty paid GI paper and merely carried out the process of printing, hence they are not required to pay duty on such printed GI papers produced from duty paid GI paper as the process of printing in this case does not amount to manufacture. 15. Accordingly, in view of our finding above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals." 13. The issue has been discussed in detail in the Tribunal's decision in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) which has been subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that printing on packages does not amount to 'manufacture'. Relevant 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 ....