1997 JTR(SC) 779
1997 92 ELT 459 ; 1998 2 SCC 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : S.C.Sen
Collector Of Customs, Bangalore
Versus
Indian Coated Cartons Private Limited
Case No. : 3071 of 1990
Date of Decision : 4/30/97
Printed cartons are classified as products of the Packaging Industry, not the Printing Industry, because their manufacture requires cutting, creasing, and shaping in addition to printing.
(A) Customs and Excise - Notification - Product of the Printing Industry - Whether printed cartons can be described as products of the Printing Industry - The Printing Industry by itself cannot bring a carton into existence - In the process of manufacturing printed cartons, the card-board has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum - Simply because there are expensive prints on the carton, such a printed carton would not become the product of the Printing Industry; it shall remain the product of the Packaging Industry. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The respondent manufactured printed cartons which were treated by the tribunal as products of the Printing Industry. The matter was brought before the court to determine if such products qualify for exemptions associated with the printing industry, considering the manufacturing processes involved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the product under consideration was a carton. It held that since the manufacture of a carton requires structural processes beyond mere printing, it cannot be classified as a product of the Printing Industry.
Issues: Whether printed cartons manufactured by the respondent can be described as products of the Printing Industry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the printing industry alone cannot create a carton; the requirement to cut, crease, and shape the cardboard means the product is a result of the Packaging Industry, regardless of the quality or expense of the printing. A distinction is drawn between labels, which may be printing products, and cartons.
Result: Appeal allowed and judgment under appeal reversed.
Facts of the case:
The respondent manufactured printed cartons which were treated by the tribunal as products of the Printing Industry. The matter was brought before the court to determine if such products qualify for exemptions associated with the printing industry, considering the manufacturing processes involved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the product under consideration was a carton. It held that since the manufacture of a carton requires structural processes beyond mere printing, it cannot be classified as a product of the Printing Industry.
Issues: Whether printed cartons manufactured by the respondent can be described as products of the Printing Industry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the printing industry alone cannot create a carton; the requirement to cut, crease, and shape the cardboard means the product is a result of the Packaging Industry, regardless of the quality or expense of the printing. A distinction is drawn between labels, which may be printing products, and cartons.
Result: Appeal allowed and judgment under appeal reversed.
Packaging - Held that printed cartons are products of the Packaging Industry and not the Printing Industry, as printing alone does not create the carton.
Labels - Distinguished from the Rollatainers case because the product under consideration was aluminium labels rather than cartons.
(1) THE question in this case is whether the printed cartons manufactured by the respondents can be described as product of Printing Industry. The printed cartons manufactured by the respondent have been treated by the tribunal as products of Printing Industry. The question was examined by this court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India , 1994 (72 E.L.T. 793 (S.C.), where it was categorically held that:
"WHAT is exempt under the Notification is the Product of the Printing Industry. The product in this case is the carton. The Printing Industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence. Any amount of fancy printing on a card-board would not make it a carton. In the process of manufacturing the printed cartons, the card-board has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. Simply because there are expensive prints on the carton such a printed carton would not become the product of the Printing Industry. It shall remain the product of the Packaging Industry."
(2)
ON behalf of the respondent it has been argued that the principle laid down in that case has to be limited to the facts of that case. There is also another judgment of this court on this point in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of central Excise, Bombay , 1996 (88 E.L.T. 630 (S.C.). In that case, the question was whether printed aluminium labels were products of printing industry. In that case, the judgment in Rollatainers case was distinguished in the following words :
"THIS court in Rollatainers case held that what is exempt under the notification is the product of the printing industry. The product in this case is the carton. The printing industry by itself cannot bring the carton into existence. Let us apply this above formula to the facts of his case."
(3) THE distinction was that in the Rollatainers case, the product under:
CONSIDERATION was carton, whereas the product under consideration in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. was aluminium label. The case before us is of cartons Neither the Appellate Collector before whom the facts were stated at great length nor the tribunal has found that the cartons were manufactured by the respondent. This is squarely governed by the judgment in Rollatainers case; (supra). Following that judgment, we allow this appeal and reverse the judgment under appeal. There will be no order as to costs.