Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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