9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/MA(Ors)/93630/15, Appeal No. E/3299/00 & E/1452/03 - A/86436-86437/16/EB, M/86438/16/EB - Dated:- 9-3-2016 - S. S. Garg, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri R D Waghe, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Asst Comm (AR) ORDER Per Raju 1. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of parts of illuminated signs classifiable under sub-heading 9405.90 of the CETA, 1985 attracting duty @18%. However, they had classified these goods under sub-heading 4901.90. The demands were confirmed by the Commissioner observing as under: In this case printed sheets manufactured by TSA have altogether different function. The sheets used by TSA are of high glossy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the definition of printing contained in Note 2 Chapter 49. If that is the case, then obviously the combination of these processes will not cease to be printing. The answer posed to the question that the Commissioner frames in paragraph 27 is therefore that the goods are products of the printing industry. In that case, they would not be classifiable under heading 94.05, since there are included elsewhere in the tariff. 2.1 The appellant also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt Ltd. - 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: '9. It was argued that the trade also understood likewise. But this argument was repelled by the Tribunal by ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products of the printing industry. It is true that all products on which some printing is done, are not the products of printing industry. It depends upon the nature of products and other circumstances. Therefore, the issue has to be decided with reference to facts of each case. A general test is neither advisable nor practicable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in concluding that the printed aluminium labels in question are not `products of printing industry'.' 2.2 He also relies on the decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs. Adhunik Plastic Industries - 1998 (98) ELT 365 (Tri) wherein the Tribunal has observed as follows: 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y products made of paper can be classified under Chapter 49. It was argued that earlier in the case of appellants themselves, the goods have been classified under Tariff heading 9405.90 vide order No. A/655-656/13/EB/C-II dated 21/06/2013. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. 5. We find that the matter stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal in the case of Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. From the facts of the said case it is seen that the facts are identical. It is seen that the demands for the subsequent period has been set aside by the Commissioner relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
