Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2884

Classification of printing biri wrappers cut to size.

Case:- HEADWAY LITHOGRAPHIC COMPANY VS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA

Citation:- 2015 (321) E.L.T. 394 (S.C.)

Brief Facts:-The appellants herein are printing biri wrappers cut to size and they have been clearing these goods under the Central Excise Act under Chapter sub-heading 4821.00, and the duty under this is Nil. The Department took the view that the case would be classified under Chapter Heading 4823.19 and excise duty at the rate of 20% was payable.
Show cause notice was issued proposing to levy excise duty of Rs. 27 lakhs for the period August, 1994 to March, 1999. After eliciting reply from the appellant, Order-in-Original was passed by the adjudicating authority confirming the demand contained in the show cause notice and also directing the appellant to pay interest thereupon. The contentions of appellant were rejected by the adjudicating authority while passing the Order-in-Original. The appellant then preferred appeal against the aforesaid order.
 The two Members differed with each other on the issue as to whether it amounted to ‘manufacture’ or not and the matter was referred to the third Member. The third Member took the view that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to ‘manufacture’. Against that judgment of the Tribunal appeal was preferred.

Appellant’s Contention:-The appellant, had taken the defence that the printing of the biri wrappers and thereafter cutting them to size does not amount to ‘manufacture’ and therefore no duty was payable. In addition, the contention of the appellant was that the printing biri wrappers cut to size were to be classified under Chapter Heading 4821.00 which attracts Nil rate of duty.

Respondent’s Contention:-Mr. Radhakrishnan referred the notice contained under Chapter 48 and particularly Note 11 thereof, which reads as under :
Except for the goods of heading No. 48.14 or 48.21, paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and articles thereof, printed with motifs, characters or pictorial representations, which are not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods, fall in Chapter 49.

Heading No. Sub-heading No. Description of Goods Rate of duty
(1) (2) (3) (4)
48.01   Newsprint, in rolls or sheets  
  4801.10 - Odd sized and rejects 10%
  4801.90 - Other 10%

 
It was pointed out that except for the goods under Heading 48.14 or 48.21, paper, paper board, cellulose, Wadding and articles thereof printed with motifs, character or pictorial representations would fall under Chapter 49 when they are not merely incidental to the primary user of the goods. He was candid in accepting that in view thereof as far as printing of the biri wrappers is concerned, it would not fall under Chapter Heading 48.23, which was the case set up by the Revenue. According to him it would fall under Chapter 49. This position is accepted by Mr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Entry 49.01, under which the goods fall, reads as under :
For the purposes of Chapter 49, ‘printed’ also means reproduced by means of a duplicating machine, produced under the control of a computer, embossed, photographed, photo-copied, thermocopied or typewritten.

Heading No. Subheading No. Description of Goods Rate of duty
(1) (2) (3) (4)
49.01   Printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry, manuscripts, typescripts and plans  
  4901.10 Transfers (decalcomanias) 20%
  4901.20 Maps and hydrographic or similar charts of all kinds including atlases, wall maps, topographical plans and globes, printed Nil
  4901.90 Other Nil

 
The only dispute is as to whether the goods in question will fall within the Entry 4901.10 or 4901.90. Whereas Mr. Radhakrishnan maintains that the goods would fall under Chapter Heading 4901.10, Mr. Lakshmikumaran argues otherwise.

Reasoning Of Judgement:-
Submissions of both were considered and Entry 4901.10 was referred which deals with ‘transfers (decalcomanias)’. The description of this entry is contained in HSN explanatory note which reads as under :
“Transfer (decalcomanias) consist of pictures, designs or lettering in single or multiple colours, lithographed or otherwise printed on absorbent, lightweight paper (or sometimes thin transparent sheeting of plastics), coated with a preparation, such as of starch and gum, to receive the imprint which is itself coated with an adhesive. This paper is often backed with a supporting paper of heavier quality. The designs are sometimes printed against a background of metal leaf.
When the printed paper is moistened and applied with slight pressure to a permanent surface (e.g. glass, pottery, wood, metal, stone or paper), the coating printed with the picture, etc. is transferred to the permanent surface.
This heading also covers vitrifiable transfers, i.e. transfers printed with vitrifiable preparations of Heading 32.07.
Transfers may be used for decoration or utility purposes, e.g. for decorating pottery or glass, or for marking various articles such as vehicles, machines, and instruments.
Transfers produced and supplied mainly for the amusement of children are also covered by this heading, as are also articles such as embroidery or hosier transfers which consist of papers on which designs are outlined in pigment which is transferred, usually to a textile surface, by pressure with a heated smoothing iron.”
On the face of it, it is apparent that the 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. In fact it is not printed on any absorbent, lightweight papers and there is no coating of starch and gum. The conclusion would be that the goods in question would fall under Item No. 4901.90 which attracts nil duty.
In view of the aforesaid classification, it is not even necessary to go into the question whether the process amounts to manufacture or not.

Decision:- The appeal is allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that printing biri wrappers cut to size would fall under Item No.4901.90 which attracts Nil rate of duty. Therefore, no duty is payable on printing biri wrappers cut to size. As the classification of the product itself leads to nil rate of duty, the question whether process amounts to manufacture or not was not taken up for consideration.

Submitted By:- Somya Jain
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com