2014 (3) TMI 913 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of goods - printed paper boards (wrappers) - Whether to classify the subject goods under SH 4901.90 as products of printing industry as claimed by the assessee or under SH 4823.90 as claimed by the revenue - Held that - Precedent case has classified similar products of different manufacturers as products of printing industry under SH 4901.90. The products so classified include printed PVC films, printed polyethylene coated paper etc. This Bench in the said case held that the printing activity was essential rather than incidental. This view was taken after examining the relevant tariff entries and Section Note (Note-2 to Section 11 of the CETA Schedule) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under SH 4901.90 or SH 4823.90

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the primary issue revolves around the classification of goods as products of the printing industry under SH 4901.90, as claimed by the assessee, or under SH 4823.90, as claimed by the revenue. The goods in question are printed paper boards used as wrappers. The revenue argues that these goods should not be classified as products of the printing industry because printing is considered incidental to the primary use of the goods, which is the packing of other goods. The appeal challenges the Appellate Commissioner's order based on this classification dispute.

The Tribunal notes that the impugned order followed a previous decision in the Srikumar Agencies case. The learned Deputy Commissioner (A.R.) highlights that the decision in the Srikumar Agencies case was appealed against by the department and subsequently set aside and remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal refers to Final Order Nos. 659-683/2011, where similar products from different manufacturers were classified as products of the printing industry under SH 4901.90. These products included printed PVC films and printed polyethylene coated paper. The Tribunal, after examining relevant tariff entries and Section Note, concluded that the printing activity was essential rather than incidental. Since the facts of the present case align with those in the Final Order dated 11-10-2011, the Tribunal upholds the classification ordered by the lower appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner notes that the above final order has been appealed against by the department, but no stay has been obtained from the Apex Court.

Ultimately, the appeal by the department is dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the printing activity in determining the classification of goods under the relevant tariff entries, following precedent and considering the essential nature of printing in such products.