9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not alter the identity of the product as the paper remains as a paper only and mere printing does not amount to manufacture. In the present case also applying the ratio of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [ 2015 (5) TMI 292 - SUPREME COURT] , the paper remained as paper, the printing process carried out only for use in the decorative laminate sheets/MDF Boards etc. However, after process of printing, the first product i.e. paper continue to be same as paper only, therefore, no manufacturing has taken place in the present case. Even if there is change in tariff heading, but there is significant change in the process and the said process does not am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter receipt of base paper, since the appellant prints the same and returns to the principals, the said goods may be classified under CETH 4811 9099 and not under CETH 4911 9990 and accordingly, duty demand has been raised. 2. Sh. S.R. Dixit Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant does not manufacture paper at all. They simply received paper sent by their principals and print images thereon. That the printing undertaken on the base paper is such, which gives the product its distinct character of being printed product, which is not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods and hence, in terms of Chapter Note 12 to Chapter 48, the said printed paper will fall under chapter 49, which is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted, it would not have rendered the same unusable for manufacture of decorative laminate sheets/MDF boards etc . I am of the view that for the printing to not be merely incidental would mean that the essential character of the goods should be imparted by printing. For example: printing on paper for production of magazine/books. Thus, I am of the considered view that in the present case the printing is merely incidental to the primary use of the said paper. 3. From the above finding, department is of the view that printing is insignificant and merely incidental to primary use of the paper, and paper remain paper and its use also does not change. The base paper could be used for making decorated laminated sheets or MDF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the Revenue Authority cannot blow hot and cold in same breath. If the printing is important and gives an essential character to the end product, making it fit for use to make decorative laminate sheets/MDF boards etc., and since such printing is not merely in order to render the product for further printing and/or writing, both under Chapter Notes 12 and 14 to Chapter 48, the said printed base paper will merit classification under Chapter 49 and hence, no duty is payable on end product and in other hand, if the printing is merely incidental primary use of paper, and as per specific findings in the impugned order, paper can be used to make decorative laminate sheets/MDF boards etc. even without such printing as well, then such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted paper is classifiable under CETH 4811 9099 and liable to duty. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the printing of already manufactured paper do not amount to manufacture, therefore, the printed paper is not liable to duty being non manufactured goods in terms of Section 2(F). We find that the department has demanded duty with a view that the appellant have manufactured printed paper, however appellant have not manufactured paper, they have only carried out the process of printing. We find that the nature of printing carried out by the appellant does not alter the identity of the product as the paper remains as a paper only and mere printing does not amount to manufacture. In this regard Ld. Counsel relied upon the various judgments. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), held that in the case of printing of name by job worker on film which is then utilized for purpose of packing does not amount to manufacture. As per this judgment, the printing was enabling the product to use as packing material for the purpose of packing. Similarly, in the present case also, the plain paper was printed with design for use in decorative laminate sheets/MDF Boards. 8. We also find that even if there is change in tariff heading, but there is significant change in the process and the said process does not amount to manufacture, merely change of tariff heading does not make product dutiable once again. This issue has been considered in the various judgments: S.R. Tissues P. Ltd 2005 (186) ELT 38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
