Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai.ii Vs. M/S. Chidambaram Litho Press Ltd - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai |
| Apr-13-2009 |
| E/215/02/MAS |
| HONB’E MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT &
HON’BLE MR. P. KARTHIKEYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) |
| Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai.ii |
| M/S. Chidambaram Litho Press Ltd |
| For the Appellants:V.V. Hariharan, SDR. For the Respondent: S. Renganathan, Advocate. |
jyoti balasundaram the revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessee that printed labels and printed wrappers manufactured by them fall for classification under ceta sub-heading 4821.00 which inter alia covers labels of all kinds, rejecting the revenue’s appeal against the order of the assistant commissioner who had so held. 2. we have heard both sides. we find that the goods are commercially known as kattu/labels. the assessees contend that the label is printed and the printing is not incidental to its use but is primary, in the sense that it communicates information about the product to the consumers. the commissioner (appeals) has also relied upon several orders passed by him and by other commissioner (appeals) against which no appeal was preferred by the revenue to the tribunal. since the goods in question are covered by the description printed label their classification under heading 4821.00 by the authorities below is correct. we therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. the appeal filed by the department is rejected by upholding the impugned order.
JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has accepted the contention of the assessee that printed labels and printed wrappers manufactured by them fall for classification under CETA sub-heading 4821.00 which inter alia covers labels of all kinds, rejecting the Revenue’s appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had so held.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the goods are commercially known as kattu/labels. The assessees contend that the label is printed and the printing is not incidental to its use but is primary, in the sense that it communicates information about the product to the consumers. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon several orders passed by him and by other Commissioner (Appeals) against which no appeal was preferred by the Revenue to the Tribunal. Since the goods in question are covered by the description printed label their classification under heading 4821.00 by the authorities below is correct. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal filed by the department is rejected by upholding the impugned order.