2011 (2) TMI 622 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Classification - Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - appellant is engaged in the work of printing and during the visit on the basis of intelligence it was found that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing printed articles of stationery - The fact that Chapter 49 according to Chapter notes covers greeting cards post ; cards calendars or maps would show that what is required to be seen is the use of product and the purpose of printing on the product - One of the products manufactured by the appellant viz. bank slip books is printed with holder s name details of account etc. The bank slip book contains basic details such as bank s name account-holder s name and number amount to be deposited etc. and the columns of these details are left blank. Account holder s name number amount etc. are to be filled up. This is nothing but pre-printed stationery and hence is correctly classifiable under CETH 48.20 Regarding penalty - All seem to think violation of provision of rules if cited is sufficient to invoke extended period and thereby penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. Further from the fact that the issue has to be elaborately discussed by us to come to the conclusion that products are classifiable in CETH 48.20 would also show that if the appellant entertained a view that the goods were not excisable the benefit of doubt should go to them - The appeal is disposed of

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of printed articles under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Invocation of extended period for demand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Printed Articles:

The appellant is engaged in printing various articles such as bank slip books, BSNL forms, application forms, receipts, progress reports, certificates, cash memos, school leaving certificates, and stickers. The primary issue was whether these items should be classified under Chapter Heading (CH) 48.20 or 49.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETH).

The appellant argued that their products, being printed articles, should fall under CETH 49.11, which covers "Other Printed matter, including printed pictures and photographs." They emphasized that the printing was essential to the nature of the goods and that they should not be considered as manufactured and cleared under CH 48.20.

The Revenue, however, contended that the items were pre-printed stationery, classifiable under CH 48.20, which includes registers, account books, note books, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries, and similar articles.

The Tribunal analyzed the competing entries in Chapter Headings 48.20 and 49.11, along with the relevant chapter notes. It concluded that pre-printed stationery, where the primary use is for completion in manuscript or type-script, falls under CH 48.20. The Tribunal noted that items such as bank slip books, BSNL forms, educational institution forms, and receipt books were essentially pre-printed stationery requiring completion by the user, thus classifiable under CH 48.20.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC:

The show cause notice alleged that the appellant had manufactured and cleared goods without obtaining Central Excise registration, without following proper procedures, and without paying the requisite duty, thereby contravening various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This was considered as willful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, justifying the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.

The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the imposition of penalty, citing the appellant's failure to comply with the Central Excise procedures as willful suppression.

However, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice and subsequent orders presumed contravention of rules as sufficient for invoking extended period and penalty without concrete evidence of suppression or misstatement. The Tribunal emphasized that mere violation of rules does not automatically justify extended period invocation or penalty under Section 11AC.

3. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand:

The Tribunal observed that the extended period for demand was invoked based on the presumption of suppression and misstatement. It noted that the classification issue required detailed discussion, indicating that the appellant might have genuinely believed their products were not excisable. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that no sufficient grounds were made out for invoking the extended period and penalty. Consequently, the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and the penalty under Section 11AC were set aside.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the classification of the products under CETH 48.20, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under CETH 49.11. However, it set aside the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and the demand beyond the normal period of limitation. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for recalculating the demand within the normal period and communicating it to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of with consequential relief to the appellant.

← Previous Next →