2018 (4) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of duty - printed material used as an advertisement for the products - Department is of the view that it is packed material and falls under Chapter 48 and hence, liable for duty - Held that - identical issue has come up before the Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE, Kolkata-Ill Vs. Harbans Lal Malhotra 2008 (8) TMI 232 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT where it was held that the material used by the respondent cannot be said to be advertising materials - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of excise duty applicability on printed material used for advertising products.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the excise duty liability on printed material used for advertising razor blades. The appellant contended that the material was merely printed and fell under Chapter 49 of CETA, while the Department argued it was packed material under Chapter 48. The appellant relied on various case laws to support their argument, emphasizing that the material was for advertising purposes. The Department, however, highlighted that the material included blades and razors sold to customers.

During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments, with the appellant citing relevant case laws to support their position. The appellant referred to the case of Ajanta Print Arts and other judgments to establish that the material in question should be classified under Chapter 49, pertaining to printing of advertisements.

The Tribunal considered a similar issue addressed by the Calcutta High Court in a previous case, where it was determined that the material used for advertising purposes did not qualify as packing material. The High Court's decision emphasized that the material, despite containing printed designs of the products, was not solely for packing but also served as advertising material. The Court differentiated between packing material and advertising material, concluding that the hanging cards were not considered as packing material.

Based on the Calcutta High Court's ruling and the analysis of the facts presented, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the material in question was rightly classified as advertising material and not packing material. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was sustained in favor of the Department.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the nature of the material used for advertising razor blades and its classification under relevant excise duty chapters. The judgment relied on precedent set by the Calcutta High Court and determined that the material in question was rightfully considered advertising material, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.