Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Gautam Offset on 10 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(186)ELT309(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The respondents were running offset printing press and were engaged in the printing of publicity materials such as Danglers, Posters etc. The department found that they had manufactured Blister Cards and Baby Cartons and cleared the same without payment of duty during 1996-97 and 1997-98. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation and demanding duty on the above clearances. The original authority confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 18,36,942/-under Section 11A and imposed penalty of equal amount on the party under Section 11AC. That authority also imposed separate penalties on them under various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The order of the original authority was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order, against which the Revenue filed the present appeals.
2. Heard both sides. Ld. SDR submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had committed a mistake by holding that the activity undertaken by the assessee did not amount to 'manufacture'. She further submitted that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not followed the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for deciding whether the process could be considered as manufacture. Ld. SDR gave an account of the process undertaken by the respondents and contended that the process answered the test laid down by the Apex Court in the cases and 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). The Blister Cards manufactured by them were distinct and different from the starting material viz. duplex boards and the same were intended for packing blister pens. The former was different from the latter in name, character and use. The Blister Cards were also marketable. The printing of product information on the card was only incidental and therefore the card was not to be treated as a product of printing industry. Ld. SDR also pointed out that Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined the classification dispute. Ld. Consultant sought to defend the impugned order.
3. After consideration of the records and submissions, we find that the lower appellate authority has given an incorrect decision on the question whether the activity undertaken by the respondents amounted to manufacture. According to the process stated before us, duplex board was subjected to printing, varnishing, gumming, pasting of release paper, cutting to size and shape and punching so as to obtain blister card meant for packing of pens. By no stretch of imagination can the blister card be considered to be the same as duplex board. As rightly submitted by ld. SDR, Blister Card emerged as a distinct commodity through a series of processes on duplex board. It was different from duplex board in name, character, commercial identity and use. Hence, in terms of the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to by ld. SDR, the process of conversion of duplex board to Blister Card should be held to be 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The contra view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. Apparently, as he did not consider the above process as manufacture, he had no occasion to examine classification and allied issues. The case, therefore, requires to be remanded to the lower appellate authority for a decision on such issues. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order, we direct ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to take a decision on classification and allied issues in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
4. The appeals stand allowed by remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)