TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise for various Commissionerates across the country in exercise of the powers vested on them read with it under Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 139 ibid. As per the said notification dated 19.06.2017, each of the Commissionerate is provided with specific jurisdiction, which inter alia contain particular Postal Index (PIN) code numbers for the areas covered and taxpayers falling under such area, who are covered under the existing laws of Central Excise Act, 1944; Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, considering the aforesaid legal provision and that the appellant is presently functioning under the jurisdiction of the Central Goods and Service Tax authorities, the revised name and address of the respondent department has been suitably incorporated. The Registry is also directed to incorporate the following changed name and address of the respondent department in the appeal records for the purpose of disposal of the appeal, as "Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Mumbai Central Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, 115 Maharshi Karve Road, Opp. Church Gate Station, Mumbai - 400 020.". 3.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers (i) No. A/1140-1144/15/EB dated 06.05.2015; and (ii) No. A/87080-87081/2023 dated 02.11.2023. Hence, she pleaded that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellant. 5. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We have also examined the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. 7. The issue involved in this appeal is to examine whether the appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty on articles of stationery of paper and paper boards etc., falling under CETH 4820.10, during the disputed of July, 2013 to January, 2014; and whether the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order is legally sustainable. 8.1 Both sides agree that the issue arising out of the present dispute for the earlier periods have already been decided favourably in the case of the appellants vide Final Orders dated 06.05.2015 and 02.11.2023. We note that in these orders, the issue have been discussed thread bare including the excisable na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and not under 4901 on the ground that product are registers, account books, various forms, order books, receipt books, letter pad, memorandum pads and similar articles binding folders, file cover, mainly business and other articles of stationery papers and paper board which are covered under 482010. On the issue of marketability, the adjudicating authority has held that products are commercial known goods in the market for being bought and sold. It was contended that it is necessary that goods should be marketed, even if product is consumed captively the status of marketability will not change. Being aggrieved by the impugned order appellant filed these appeals. xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. We find that in the show cause notices as well as in the impugned order it was contended that appellant are engaged in manufacture of registers, accounts books, various forms, order books, receipt books, letter pad, memorandum pads and similar articles binding folders, file cover, mainly business and other articles of stationery papers and paper board. However, ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant produced almost all types of forms and printed materials which are printed in the appellant's print....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation 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 - 398CESTAT-Del. and that Bench held that the correct classification would be under 4901.90. We are in complete agreement with that decision and following that order, the classification in the present case is ordered under heading 4901.90. Commr. of C. Ex., Belapur v. Alpha Carbonless Paper Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (304) E.L.T. 604 (Tri. - Mumbai)] 6.1 From the HSN explanatory notes, it is seen that Heading 4823 excludes products like lottery tickets, scratch cards, raffle tickets and tombola tickets. Similarly, HSN explanatory notes to Heading 4901 clearly shows that "certain printed articles may be intended for completion in manuscript or typescript at the time of use but remain in this heading provided they are essentially printed matter. Thus, printed forms, travel tickets, circular letters, identity documents and cards printed with messages, notices, etc. requiring only the insertion of particulars, e.g. dates and names are classified in this heading. The said notes further say that tickets for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 (S.C.)] 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the Revenue by producing the evidence then claim of appellant that the goods in question is not marketable must be accepted and no contrary view can be taken. In this context some judgments and relevant paras thereof are reproduced below. Gujarat Nermada Valley Fert. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Ex. & Cus. [2005 (184) E.L.T. 128 (S.C.)] 7. The onus was on the Revenue. The only piece of evidence which has been produced by the Revenue was a test report which merely stated that the sample showed that the items were organic chemicals. It does not in any way establish marketability. Nor can marketability be established on the basis of mere stability. Something more would have to be shown to establish that DECA AND CMBE were known in the market as commercial products. Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Tata Iron & Steel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the learned Chief Justice then was, speaking for the Court observed that in order to attract excise duty the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. The expression "goods manufactured or produced" must refer to goods which are capable of being sold to the consumer. This Court observed as follows :- "It does not seem to us that in order to attract excise duty the article manufactured must be capable of sale to a consumer. Entry 84 of List I of Schedule VII to the Constitution specifically speaks of "duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India .........", and it is now well accepted that excise duty is an indirect tax, in which the burden of the imposition is passed on to the ultimate consumer. In that context, the expression "goods manufactured or produced" must refer to articles whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the Tribunal." xxx xxx xxx xxx On going through above judgments it is found that since, in the present case, first the Revenue has not discharged the burden of proof that the product in question is marketable or otherwise and from the nature of the product coupled with the fact that printed material printed in the appellants' printing press is not for general use in the market but for their own use, the goods clearly not marketable. We are fully in agreement with the ld. Sr. Counsel that in terms of definition of excisable goods and explanation thereto the goods should be capable of being bought and sold and that too for consideration. In the present case goods being printed with name and details of Central Railway is not capable of being bought and sold for consideration hence the same is not marketable goods. In view of our above discu....