Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1996 (11) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... use but primary in the sense that it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. This Court in Rollatainers case held that "what is exempt under the notification is the `product' of the printing industry. The `product' in this case is the carton. The printing industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence". Let us apply this above formula to the facts of this case. The `product' in this case is the aluminium printed label. The printing industry has brought the label into existence. That being the position and further the test of trade having understood this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in holding that the labels in question are the products o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as a label or a wrapper and that being inherently not a piece of reading matter, will not fall under the above-said exemption Notification. On that view, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Hence the present appeals by special leave. 3.Mr. V. Laxmikumaran, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in coming to a conclusion that the printing on the aluminium label was incidental to its use. According to the learned counsel, the printing was the primary purpose and without it, the metal on which the matter was printed, is of no use to the appellant's customer. It is the contention of the learned counsel that it is the printing that gives the aluminium labels their use without which they would not be calle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. 5.We have considered the rival submissions. The labels in question are printed on flatbed off-set printing press and the printing is done on a deep off-set printing machine. These labels are meant to be fixed to refrigerators, radios, air-conditioners, telephone sets etc. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that a certificate of an award was printed on aluminium sheet of an association. The Tribunal in the course of its order has observed as follows :- "According to the appellants, all these aluminium sheets are meant to serve a purpose connected only with the printing on them. This can be very briefly described as a communication to the reader that the commodity, product, device, machine etc. etc. to which the printed aluminiu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e view that to a common man in the trade and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all products on which some printing is done, are the product of printing industry, cannot be accepted." 8.This Court accepted the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court to hold that the printed cartons are not the products of the printing industry. The following reasoning of the Division Bench reads as follows :- "The classification of manufactured goods cannot be dependent merely upon their place of production. The product wherever produced must be classified having regard to what it means and how it is understood in common parlance. The guiding fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it, which is merely incidental. In our view, the fact that sometimes more money may be spent on printing than other things, will make no difference." (Emphasis supplied) 9.It was argued that the trade also understood likewise. But this argument was repelled by the Tribunal by observing that classification of goods can never be based on what the industry regards the goods to be. This approach seems contrary to the view expressed by this Court in Rollatainers case. There this Court approved the test based on understanding of trade parlance/common parlance of a particular product. In the case on hand, but for the printing, the aluminium label would serve no purpose and as seen above, it is the printing on the aluminium sheet, which communic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates