2014 (3) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Whether the process of printing as well as on lamination of printed poly film amounts to manufacture or not - Held that - even if the printing amounts to manufacture, the final product which emerges would be printing under Printing Industries Act, thus classifiable under Chapter 49 which attract nil rate of duty. We also find prima facie favour with the appellant s contention that the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue. However, taking into consideration that a part of the demand would be within the limitation period and considering that the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.40 lakhs, we find offer of learned advocate to further deposit of amount of Rs.20 lakhs as fair offer - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Application to dispense with pre-deposit of duty; Whether printing and lamination amount to manufacture; Classification of final product under Chapter 49; Availability of extended period of limitation; Stay on recovery during appeal.

Analysis:
1. Pre-deposit of duty: The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.3,85,10,422/- confirmed against them along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and directed the appellant to deposit an additional Rs.20 lakhs, totaling Rs.60 lakhs, within 8 weeks. This deposit was deemed fair, and the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal.

2. Manufacture through printing and lamination: The Revenue contended that the printing and lamination of poly films by the appellant amounted to manufacture, justifying the duty imposition. The appellant argued that printing did not constitute manufacture or, if it did, the final product would fall under Chapter 49 with a nil rate of duty. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting decisions on this issue but prima facie agreed with the appellant's position, suggesting that the final product would be classified under Chapter 49, attracting nil duty.

3. Extended period of limitation: The Tribunal considered the availability of the extended period of limitation to the Revenue for confirming the duty demand. While acknowledging that part of the demand fell within the limitation period, the Tribunal leaned towards the appellant's view that the extended limitation period might not apply. Despite this, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make the additional deposit, taking into account the already paid amount and the fair offer made by the appellant's advocate.

4. Stay on recovery during appeal: The Tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the balance duty amount, interest, and penalty during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the appellant's compliance with the additional deposit requirement. This decision aimed to provide relief to the appellant while ensuring the Revenue's interests were safeguarded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of pre-deposit of duty, classification of printing and lamination as manufacture, the applicability of the extended limitation period, and the stay on recovery during the appeal. The Tribunal's decision balanced the interests of both parties by requiring a reasonable additional deposit from the appellant while granting relief on the remaining duty, interest, and penalty amounts.