Collector Of Customs, Bangalore v. Indian Coated Cartons (P) Ltd. .

Order

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 Supp (3) SCC 293, (1994) 72 ELT 793 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 cardboard would not make it a carton. In the process of manufacturing the printed cartons, the cardboard 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 this case has to be limited to the facts of this case. There is also another judgment of this Court on this point in the case of Metagraphs (P) Ltd. v. CCE (1997) 1 SCC 262, (1996) 88 ELT 630. In that case, the question was whether printed aluminium labels were products of printing industry. In that case, the judgment in Rollatainers case AIR 1963 SC 791, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 586 was distinguished in the following words:

“This Court in Rollatainers case AIR 1963 SC 791, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 586 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 this case.”

3. The distinction was that in the Rollatainers case AIR 1963 SC 791, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 586 the product under consideration was carton, whereas the product under consideration in the case of Metagraphs (P) Ltd. 1980 Supp SCC 174 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 AIR 1963 SC 791, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 586. Following that judgment, we allow this appeal and reverse the judgment under appeal. There will be no order as to costs.