Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. J.J. Enterprises vs Cce, Meerut-I on 4 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
Date of hearing:25.04.2013
Date of Decision:04.06.2013
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Excise Appeal No.E/3180/2005-Excise (DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.113/CE/APL/MRT-1/05 dated 8.7.2005 passed by the passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-I).
M/s. J.J. Enterprises Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance: Shri Badri Narayan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent.
Coram : Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.56511/2013 dated 4.6.2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under:-
1.1 The appellant are manufacturers of tin containers and printed sheets falling under central excise tariff Heading NO.731000 and 721030 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. During the period of dispute, the appellant received tin plated steel sheets from their customers for printing as per the customers specifications. The printed sheets were cleared to the customers without payment of duty. The department was of the view that the activity of printing of steel sheets amounts to manufacture and that the printed sheets would be chargeable to duty under sub-heading 7210.30 of the Tariff. On this basis, after issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 15.10.2004 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.35,01,890/- against the appellant in respect of clearances of printed sheets during the period from 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant company. Besides this, he also imposed penalty of Rs.5 Lakh on the appellant company under Rule 25(1)(a) &(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30.06.2005 dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri Badri Narayan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant were doing job work for their customers M/s. B.R. Industries, that they were receiving the tin plated iron sheets on which the appellant were doing the job of printing as per the customers specifications, that the blank tin plated iron and steel strips being received for printing were cut to size and thereafter were subjected to printing, that this process does not amount to manufacture, that the printed sheets are not covered under sub-heading no.7210.30, as this sub-heading covers only painted, lacquered, varnished or plastic coated sheets and the sheets, in question, are neither painted nor lacquered nor varnished or plastic quoted, that in any case, even if the printing of the cut to size sheets is considered as process of manufacture, since the printed sheets which are meant for conveying some information, the same are product of printing industry classifiable under Chapter 49 where the rate of duty is nil, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Bombay reported in 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that printed aluminium labels are the products of printing industry and that the same view has been taken in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 1997 (94) ELT 286, wherein it was held that the printed cloth labels, aluminium foil printed labels, film printed labels and paper printed labels would be classifiable as product of printing industry under Chapter 49 of the Tariff. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Shri Sanjay Jain, the learned Departmental Representative defended the impugned order by reiterating the Commissioner (Appeals)s findings.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant , during the period of dispute, were receiving tin plate iron and steel sheets from their customers, M/s. B.R. Industries for printing on job work basis. The printing was being done as per their customers specifications. The point of dispute is as to whether this activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture and whether the printed sheets would attract central excise duty under Heading No.7210.30 of the Tariff.
6. The appellant are printing various texts on the steel sheets received by them as per the design and the specifications of the sheet suppliers. There is no doubt that the printing on the sheets conveys some message/information. In our view, therefore, printed sheets have to be treated as products of printing industry and hence, the process of printing would amount to manufacture. The Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Johnsons & Johnsons (supra) has held that printed aluminium labels, paper printed labels, plastic printed labels and cloth printed labels are the products of printing industry classifiable under Chapter 49 of the Tariff. Therefore, the printed sheets are classifiable as product of printing industry under Chapter 49 of the Tariff where the rate of duty is nil and as such, the duty demand by classifying the printed sheets under heading 7210.30 would not be sustainable. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
[order pronounced on 4.6.2013.] ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
2