9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted coated paper boards which were required to have been classified under Chapter Heading 4810.90 as against the declaration filed by the appellants for classification under chapter sub-heading No. 4810.10 of the tariff. While computing duty, the department has taken the printing charges and other charges which has brought into existence the printed coated paper board. 3.The contention of the appellant is that the duty liability has to be worked out only on the coated paper board which was cleared for printing purpose. They also contend that the valuation adopted for the purpose for arriving at the value on coated paper board cannot be done on the basis of norms fixed under DEEC scheme but have to be taken separate norms of input/output ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Tribunal in the case of Sri Kumar Agencies v. Commissioner - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (T) has held that printed paper/board etc. would fall under Tariff Heading 4901.90. He pointed out that this judgment has been followed by this Bench in the case of Paxwell Printers v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (93) ECR 340 (T) and again followed in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Reliance Printers, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728 (T) = 2000 (93) ECR 230 (T). He pointed out that larger period is not attracted in the case as the classification list had been filed and had been duly approved. He also contended that the duty is required to be discharged by them on coated printed board only. However, its value is required to be reworked out in terms of the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the printing carried out by the appellants on the coated paper board amounts to a process of manufacture? In this regard, we notice that the West Regional Bench in the case of CCE v. Supreme Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that process of printing on plain plastic film does not amount to a process of manufacture. They have followed the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217 and that of Apex Court's judgment rendered in UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Paper Products Ltd., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (S.C.) has held that printing of name on the film which is then utilized for the purpose of packaging does not amount to a process of manufacture. In view of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held. 9.Insofar as the computation of duty on the coated paper removed for the purpose of printing without payment of duty is concerned the appellants are not aggrieved with the duty liability. However, they have raised serious contention on the valuation and also on the rate of duty. We are agreeable with the appellant's contention that the norms fixed for the purpose of import under a DEEC licence cannot be applied for Excise side and the norms for input/output is for manufacture of coated paper is required to be taken afresh. Therefore, we remand the matter to the original authority to arrive at the exact duty liability which is required to be discharged by the appellant on the clearances of coated paper without payment of duty for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
