2019 (3) TMI 108 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Classification of goods – manifold business forms including printed/ blank continuous computer stationery forms and printed cut sheet forms – classifiable under 4820 of CETA, 1985 or not – SSI Exemption – Held that:- The ld. consultant is correct in his assertion that the classification of the impugned goods has been settled by case laws cited by him, in particular, the Tribunal’s decision in Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. [
2011 (9) TMI 921 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. This being so, at least in respect of the items in Table like LIC Intimation letter, share certificates, bus ticket, boarding pass, etc. all generated by computer stationery will not be exigible to tax.
–
It is appropriate to remand the matter back to the original authority who will take note of in such re-adjudication and apply the ratios laid down in the decisions cited – The authority shall look into the claim and after applying the ratio of the case laws, it is found that t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
how cause notice was issued to the appellant inter alia proposing to demand duty of ₹ 14,04,409/- with interest in respect of clearances made from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2008 and for imposing penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the original authority vide order dated 31.5.2010 confirmed the duty liability as proposed in the show cause notice and also imposed equal penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 25. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand except for setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, ld. consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared on behalf of the appellant and made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarized as under:- 2.1 The department has taken the full turnover as per the Profit and Loss account without excluding the non-excisable jobs and confirmed the demand. 2.2 The ld. consultant submitted a ch
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ing decisions:- a. Dy. Chief Manager (P&S) Central Railway Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – I – 2015 (328) ELT 296 b. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Shree Datawares Pvt. Ltd. – 2017 (349) ELT 499 c. B.K. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay – 1998 (101) ELT 407 d. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Chidambaram Litho Press – 2009 (247) ELT 690. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR Supports the impugned order. She submitted that as per law, the product would fall under 4820 of CETA and not under 4911. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We find that the ld. consultant is correct in his assertion that the classification of the impugned goods has been settled by case laws cited by him, in particular, the Tribunal s decision in Data Processing Forms Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This being so, at least in respect of the items in Table like LIC Intimation letter, share certificates, bus ticket, boarding pass, etc. all generated by computer stationery will not be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rity Job – High Court judgment sheet – Cut sheet 234453 0 Jewel loan form – printed cut sheet 0 48950 TMA forms – thermal paper cut to size (for ATM) 529544 Conductor cash receipt / trip sheet – printed cut sheet 0 2373331 Pothy s cash token – printed cut sheet 506835 341835 O.P. slip – printed cut sheet 34340 172308 Letter head – printed cut sheet 374543 0 Blank forms & blank paper – printed cut sheet 5870479 1648284 8813558 8813558 6333048 6333048 Balance turnover which are excisable 76,64,881 10686928 Well within SSI limits 1 Crore 1.5 crore In the circumstances, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the original authority who will take note of in such re-adjudication and apply the ratios laid down in the decisions cited above. The authority shall look into the claim and after applying the ratio of these case laws, it is found that the impugned goods are required to be classified under CETA 4901 and not under CETA 4820, the authority shall exclude the turnover ther
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =