M/S. J.J. ENTERPRISES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under: -

(2.) SHRI Badri Narayan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant were doing job work for their customers M/s. B.R. Industries, that they were receiving the tin plated iron sheets on which the appellant were doing the job of printing as per the customer's specifications, that the blank tin plated iron and steel strips being received for printing were cut to size and thereafter were subjected to printing, that this process does not amount to manufacture, that the printed sheets are not covered under sub -heading No. 7210.30, as this sub -heading covers only painted, lacquered, varnished or plastic coated sheets and the sheets, in question, are neither painted nor lacquered nor varnished or plastic quoted, that in any case, even if the printing of the cut to size sheets is considered as process of manufacture, since the printed sheets which are meant for conveying some information, the same are product of printing industry classifiable under Chapter 49 where the rate of duty is nil, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Bombay reported in : 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that printed aluminium labels are the products of printing industry and that the same view has been taken in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in, 1997 (94) ELT 286, wherein it was held that the printed cloth labels, aluminium foil printed labels, film printed labels and paper printed labels would be classifiable as product of printing industry under Chapter 49 of the Tariff. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant, during the period of dispute, were receiving tin plate iron and steel sheets from their customers, M/s. B.R. Industries for printing on job work basis. The printing was being done as per their customer's specifications. The point of dispute is as to whether this activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture and whether the printed sheets would attract central excise duty under Heading No. 7210.30 of the Tariff. The appellant are printing various texts on the steel sheets received by them as per the design and the specifications of the sheet suppliers. There is no doubt that the printing on the sheets conveys some message/information. In our view, therefore, printed sheets have to be treated as products of printing industry and hence, the process of printing would amount to manufacture. The Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Johnsons & Johnsons (supra) has held that printed aluminium labels, paper printed labels, plastic printed labels and cloth printed labels are the products of printing industry classifiable under Chapter 49 of the Tariff. Therefore, the printed sheets are classifiable as product of printing industry under Chapter 49 of the Tariff where the rate of duty is nil and as such, the duty demand by classifying the printed sheets under heading 7210.30 would not be sustainable. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.