ROLLATAINERS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/assessee is manufacturer of printed cartons and had been paying excise duty on the printed cartons under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise since 1975. The petitioner submitted a revised classification list No. 29/78 on 15th May, 1978 with a representation that printed carton should be exempted from duty under Tariff Item No. 68 since these were products of printing industry and, therefore, eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1st March, 1975 as amended by Notification No. 114/75 dated 30th April, 1975 and 122/75 dated 5th May, 1975. The Assistant Collector, Faridabad, held that the benefit of exemption claim was not admissible. In appeal, however, the Appellate Collector held that the petitioner manufactured printed cartons and not merely cartons used for packing of goods and as such these goods were to be treated as products of printing industry and thus eligible for exemption from payment of duty. The Appellate Collector order was made on 23rd November, 1978. The Government of India issued to the petitioner a show cause notice dated 24th September, 1979 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1945, proposing to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and to pass an order that printed cartons manufactured by the petitioner could not held to be products of printing industry eligible to exemption but were products of packaging industry. At this stage. Civil Writ Petition No. 113/81 was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of show c.ause notice dated 24th September, 1979.

(2.) The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court to determine the question whether design printed boards/cartons should be classifiable under Item No. 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff or under Item No. 68. If classifiable under Item No. 17(2) the goods will be immune from levy of excise duty. The Division Bench noticed that in case the goods are held to be products of packing industry and not of printing industry then they will have to be classified under Item No. 68 so as to be available for levy of excise duty. Considering the importance of the question involved the Division Bench by orders dated 8th April, 1992 referred the matter-for determination by a larger Bench.

(3.) When the matter was heard by a Full Bench learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the question referred to Full Bench stood concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in Rollatainers Ltd. & Am. v. Union of India b Others, JT 1994 (4) SC 458 and that the printed cartons manufactured by the petitioner Company cannot be treated as products of the printing industry and, therefore, not entitled to the exemption as claimed by the petitioner. The Full Bench in its decision dated 9th January, 1995 noticed that the petitioner had also raised in the writ petition another point, namely, the show cause notice being barred by limitation. Dealing with the question of limitation the Full Bench held that the appropriate remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to agitate that point before the Tribunal. The relevant part of the decision of the Full Bench on this aspect reads as under: