Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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