1985 (7) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether office files with tags and clips with the brand and description printed on the front page are liable to duty under Item 68.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1st March, 1975.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The dispute revolves around whether office files with printed brand and description fall under the purview of the printing industry. The appellants argue that the printing process is integral to the manufacturing process, making the files eligible for exemption. However, the department contends that the printing is not essential for the files to be fully operative and useful, therefore not qualifying as products of the printing industry. Various judicial decisions are cited to support both arguments, emphasizing the significance of printing as the culminating process for a product to be considered part of the printing industry. The department asserts that the files in question do not meet this criterion and should not be exempted.

Issue 2:
The appellants raise procedural objections, claiming that the lack of a detailed order from the assessing authority resulted in a miscarriage of justice. They argue that the absence of a show cause notice violates principles of natural justice. However, the department argues that the issuance of a show cause notice was not necessary as the case involved seeking exemption under a notification. The Appellate Collector had provided a full opportunity for hearing and examination of samples, ensuring no miscarriage of justice occurred. The department further asserts that the appellants cannot introduce a new argument at this stage regarding the manufacturing process of the files.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upholds the department's position, ruling that the office files with printed brand and description do not qualify as products of the printing industry under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1st March, 1975. The decision is supported by various precedents and the interpretation that printing must be the culminating process for a product to be considered part of the printing industry. The Tribunal dismisses the appeal, affirming the findings of the lower authorities and denying the appellants' claim for exemption from excise duty.