9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s outside their premises and as the manufacturing activity was post clearance. He has applied the ratio of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai- 2004 (166) E.L.T. 426 (Tri. - Chennai). The finding recorded in Paras 6 to 8 reproduced herein below. 6. I have examined the issue. The short point to be decided is whether the impugned order wherein duty demand is raised on the printing charges collected by the Appellant during the material period, is sustainable. 7. At the outset. I wish to record that the demand, which has been confirmed or. clearances spread over almost a decade, should have been processed by putting the appellant on notice. The impugned order has been passed in complete violation of the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nneled by the principal through the Appellant's Bangalore liaison office [Lampack Printing Division] to the Printers for a fee contracted with the Appellant, which fee has been be included in the conversion charges assessed. The lower authority simply viewed the receipt of Printing Charges in the annual statements in isolation and did not examine the contra entries pertaining to payments made to the Printers by the Appellant's liaison office at Bangalore. The financial stake connected to the Appellant's clearances is at the most limited to the liaison fee charged from the principal, which anyway is included in the conversion charges assessed. Finally, the question of considering the activity of printing as a process of manufacture has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been followed in the case of Pax well Printers v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) and in the case of CCE v. Reliance Printers (supra), we hold that the classification of the printed paper board in any event if it is held to be goods would fall under Chapter Heading No.4901.90. The judgment cited by learned SDR in the case of Headway Lithographic Co. v. CCE, Kolkata-I (supra) pertains to wrapper for bin which is a different product and the classification therein is different. 8. In view of findings arrived at by us that the process of printing on the coated paper board does not amount to a process of manufacture and that the show cause notice also does no allege that such a process amounts to manufacture, we have to uphold the assessee's conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
