1994 (11) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of Asst. Collector to issue notice under Rule 10 after refund order.
2. Classification of printed cartons as products of printing industry for exemption.

Competency of Asst. Collector:
The appeals by M/s Ideal Printers questioned the Asst. Collector's authority to issue a notice under Rule 10 after a refund order, contending that only Section 35-A could review such orders. The ld. Member Technical, P.C. Jain, emphasized that Rule 10 proceedings were not lapsed due to Section 11-A introduction. Referring to judicial precedents, the Tribunal highlighted conflicting opinions among High Courts and internal Tribunal benches, leading to the decision to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

Classification of Printed Cartons:
Regarding the classification of printed cartons, the Tribunal noted conflicting views from different High Courts and internal Tribunal benches. The ld. Member (Judicial) agreed to refer the matter to a larger Bench due to contradictory opinions. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for a comprehensive review due to conflicting decisions and proposed a larger Bench to resolve the controversy. The dissenting opinion by the Senior Vice President supported the referral to determine if printed cartons qualified for exemption under Notification No. 55/75.

Detailed Analysis:
The ld. Advocate for Ideal Printers argued that the matter required examination by the larger Bench, emphasizing that the issue of notice validity under Rule 10 and the classification of goods were interconnected. On the other hand, Fit Right Packaging's counsel conceded that the Supreme Court's judgment in Rollatainers Ltd. v. U.O.I. was against their clients. The respondents contended that the notice issue was settled by the referring Bench, urging for appeal rejection based on the Rollatainers Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the records and submissions, concluding that the notice's legality under Rule 10 was not resolved by the referring Bench. The primary question referred was whether printed cartons were products of the printing industry. Referring to the Rollatainers Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal clarified that expensive prints on cartons did not alter their classification as products of the packaging industry. The Tribunal referenced the classification list filed by Ideal Printers and emphasized that their registration as a printing press did not alter the cartons' classification.

In the final decision, the Tribunal ordered that Ideal Printers' appeal would be heard by the concerned Bench to decide the notice's validity under Rule 10. Fit Right Packaging's appeal was dismissed based on their acknowledgment of manufacturing printed cartons. The judgment highlighted the importance of resolving the classification issue and the need for a larger Bench to address conflicting opinions effectively.