Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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