2017 (6) TMI 368 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - printing of laminated and un-laminated poly rolls - validity of SCN - Held that - the said SCN nowhere established that printing amounted to manufacture - wherever the appellant is undertaking only printing of polyfilms that activity is not attracting Central Excise duty - the appellant is also laminating printed film, the goods which are laminated after printing do not attract Central Excise duty till 09.05.2008. For the period subsequent to 10.05.2008, goods which are laminated after printing are covered by definition of manufacture. The printed poly films do not attract Central Excise duty, further till 09.05.2008 laminated printed poly films did not attract Central Excise duty. Further, wef. 10.05.2008, printed laminated poly films fall under Tariff Item No.4911 and attract nil rate of duty. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the printing and lamination activities undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture under Central Excise law.
2. Whether the demand for Central Excise duty, penalties, and confiscation imposed on the appellant are sustainable.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involved appeals against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad, regarding printing and lamination activities conducted by the appellant. The appellant, engaged in printing of laminated and un-laminated poly rolls, was alleged to have not paid Central Excise duty. The show cause notice raised concerns about the classification of goods and alleged non-registration for exemption. The appellant contested that printing did not amount to manufacture, citing relevant case law. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and confiscated goods. The Tribunal analyzed the activities and relevant tariff items. It was held that printing of poly films did not attract Central Excise duty, while laminated films were subject to duty post a specific date. The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original, penalties, and confiscation, ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal examined the sustainability of the demand for Central Excise duty, penalties, and confiscation. It was noted that the show cause notice failed to establish printing as manufacturing. The Tribunal differentiated between printing and lamination activities, determining the duty applicability based on specific dates and tariff items. As per Section Note 2 and case law references, the Tribunal concluded that printed poly films did not attract duty, and laminated films were subject to duty post a specified date. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, granting the appellant consequential relief in accordance with the law. The impugned Order-in-Original, penalties, and confiscation were set aside due to the unsustainable demand for Central Excise duty.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between printing and lamination activities concerning Central Excise duty liability, emphasizing the importance of specific dates, tariff classifications, and legal precedents in determining the taxability of goods under Central Excise law.