2017 (4) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rther, the printed adhesive labels are more appropriately and specifically can be categorized as printed material covered under Heading 4911. Penalty - Held that: - the SCN has not brought out any specific role or malafide intention which will establish that the partner had knowledge or reasons to believe that the goods cleared by the respondent were liable for confiscation nor any goods have been proposed to be confiscated in the SCN - there is no justification to impose penalty on the partner of the respondent firm. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Philips, Advocate for the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ckers and non-imposition of penalty on the partner of the respondent firm. The respondent also filed cross objection contesting the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The main point for decision is correct classification of paper stickers and labels manufactured and cleared by the respondent. We have perused some samples of the said items. These are basically advertising/publicity materials consisting of pictures and details of advertising party's services, products, etc. On a plain examination, it is clear that the items in question basically assume their characteristics as a product of printing industry, as the matter printed on the paper is of essence and not the paper. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n to product under tariff heading 4911. We are in agreement with the findings recorded in the impugned order. 8. Regarding non-imposition of penalty on the partner of the respondent firm, we find the impugned order (para-6) categorically records the reasons for the same. It is clearly recorded that the show cause notice has not brought out any specific role or malafide intention which will establish that the partner had knowledge or reasons to believe that the goods cleared by the respondent were liable for confiscation nor any goods have been proposed to be confiscated in the show cause notice. With this reason, the impugned order concluded that there is no justification to impose penalty on the partner of the respondent firm under Rule 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X