2004 (11) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of the cost of printing in the assessable value of PVC film/sheeting for Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by Revenue raised the issue of whether the cost of printing should be included in the assessable value of PVC film/sheeting for Central Excise duty. The respondent, a company manufacturing PVC film/sheeting, cleared the product and then undertook the printing process. The Dy. Commissioner demanded duty on the cost of printing, considering the main factory gate as the place of removal and evaluation. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that printing on duty paid plain plastic film does not amount to manufacture, citing the decision in the case of J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. The Revenue contended that since the respondent cleared PVC sheets to their Printing Division located in the same premises, the decision in the J.G. Glass case was not applicable, emphasizing the decision in Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. regarding the inclusion of costs in the assessable value. The respondent argued that the printing process was carried out in a separate factory across the road, not in the same factory as the manufacturing, and therefore the cost of printing should not be included in the assessable value.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the process of manufacturing PVC film was completed when the film came into existence, even before the printing process. The Revenue failed to provide evidence that the printing was done in the same premises as the manufacturing. The Tribunal held that the PVC film was a complete product before printing, and the printing did not create a new product. Citing the decision in the J.G. Glass case, the Tribunal concluded that Central Excise duty could not be charged again after printing. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by Revenue and rejected it.