1996 (11) TMI 68 - SC - Central Excise

Whether Printed Aluminium Labels'(hereinafter referred to as labels ) manufactured by the appellant are products of the printing industry' within the meaning of Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? Held that - The label announces to the customer that the product is or is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. This Court in Rollatainers case held that what is exempt under the notification is the product' of the printing industry. The product' in this case is the carton. The printing industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence . Let us apply this above formula to the facts of this case. The product' in this case is the aluminium printed label. The printing industry has brought the label into existence. That being the position and further the test of trade having understood this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products of the printing industry. It is true that all products on which some printing is done, are not the products of printing industry. It depends upon the nature of products and other circumstances. Therefore, the issue has to be decided with reference to facts of each case. A general test is neither advisable nor practicable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in concluding that the printed aluminium labels in question are not products of printing industry'. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether 'Printed Aluminium Labels' are considered 'products of the printing industry' for the purpose of exemption under a specific excise notification.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of whether 'Printed Aluminium Labels' manufactured by the appellant qualify as 'products of the printing industry' under a particular excise notification. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the printing on the labels was incidental to their use as labels or wrappers, thus disqualifying them from the exemption. The appellant argued that the printing was the primary purpose of the labels, essential for informing customers about the product or brand. The Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that the printing was only incidental to the labels' use, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

The Supreme Court analyzed the nature and purpose of the printing on the labels, emphasizing that the printed words served a crucial communication function for customers, aiding in their product selection. The Court compared this case with a previous judgment regarding printed cartons and highlighted the distinction between incidental printing and printing essential for product identification. It was noted that the printing industry was responsible for bringing the labels into existence, and the trade commonly understood these labels as products of the printing industry. The Court rejected the Tribunal's conclusion that the labels were not 'products of the printing industry,' emphasizing the primary role of printing in informing customers and aiding their purchasing decisions.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and granting the appellants the right to claim exemption under the relevant notification for the 'Printed Aluminium Labels.' The Court's decision was based on the crucial role of printing in communicating product information to customers, establishing the labels as products of the printing industry.