1997 (7) TMI 159 - SC - Central Excise

Whether printed cartons being products of the printing industry had been exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated March 1 1975 as amended? Held that - The present case is thus fully covered by the decision of this Court in Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India 1994 (7) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein held that printed cartons could not be regarded as a product of the printing industry and were not entitled to exemption from excise duty under the Notification dated March 1 1975 as amended. To a common man in the trade and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all products on which some printing is done are the products of the printing industry cannot be accepted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption from excise duty for products of the printing industry.
2. Determination of whether printed cartons qualify as products of the printing industry for excise duty exemption.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that allowed a refund of excise duty to a respondent who manufactured printed cartons. The respondent claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. for products of the printing industry. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed it based on a revision application decision. However, the Central Government later reversed this decision, stating that printed cartons were not products of the printing industry. The High Court disagreed with a Karnataka High Court decision and held in favor of the respondent, citing the exemption notification. The Supreme Court noted a previous judgment affirming that a carton remains a product of the packaging industry even with printing. The respondent argued that a subsequent decision regarding printed aluminum labels supported their case. The Court referenced literature showing advancements in the printing industry but ultimately held that not all printed materials qualify as products of the printing industry. The Court concluded that the printed cartons in question did not qualify for the exemption and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, following precedent.