Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : C.E.A.Nos.16 of 2005
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/07/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (4243) Andhra Pradesh HC (77)

Brief of the Case

In the case of CCE&C vs. M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and no subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing into existence any new commodity.

Brief facts of the case

The respondent industrial concern received paper in jumbo rolls of width 470 mm to 520 mm and length 12,100 mts. The Jumbo rolls are cut into strips of width 35mm to 48 mm and length of 2000 mts., to 3000 mts., and the same returned to M/s VST Industries, Azamabad (in short VST), in smaller rolls, commonly known in trade as bobbins. These bobbins are used by the VST in its process of manufacture of filtered cigarettes. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad, issued notice to the respondent alleging suppression of turnover with respect to the manufacturing of printed cork tipping paper falling under Chapter Sub-heading No.4901.90. The period covered under the show cause notice was 11/94 to 9/99. After considering the objections raised by the respondent, a duty of Rs.89,54,222/- was demanded along with equal amount of penalty coupled with interest. Against the Order-in-Original dated 29.05.2000 the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its final order dated 11.05.2004 allowed the appeal following the case of RGL Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi equivalent to 2003 (154) ELT 711 (Tri.-Del). The Tribunal also distinguished the larger Bench order of the Calcutta Tribunal in the case of M/s Headway Lithographic Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata.

Held by Hon’ble High Court

The Hon’ble High Court stated that the simple controversy involved is whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes and printing on them by a job worker would amount to manufacture as defined under the Central Excise Act.

The department relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Headway Lithographic Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. The said judgment is the judgment against the larger Bench Order of the Tribunal in M/s Headway Lithographic Company case (2 supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the case therein while holding that the products manufactured by the Headway Lithographic Company would   be classifiable under Chapter 49, however, held Printing of biri wrappers would not and can never fit under the description transfer decalcomanias inasmuch as in the present case on plain paper simple printing is done on the wrappers which are cut to size for the purpose of wrapping the biris and there is no use of sheet of plastics.

The Hon’ble court stated that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in R.G.L. Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and there is no further appeal, thereby the Order of the Tribunal had become final. The Tribunal in R.G.L. Convertors case had followed the order of the Tribunal in Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy. In which case, the question involved was the activity of printing of papers inter alia cork tipping paper for cigarette corks. In other words, the facts are identical. The appeal filed against the orders of the Tribunal came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage. A reference may be made to Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd., case and Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd., inasmuch as the issue is no longer res integra.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4154)
Type : Judiciary (12057)
Tags : high court judgments (4558) Rohit Gupta (33)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts