COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV versus MIS. FITRITE PACKERS, MUMBAI

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 07-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 851 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV 
A 
v. 
MIS. FITRITE PACKERS, MUMBAI 
(Civil Appeal No. 2733 .of 2007) 
"OCTOBER 07, 2015 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act, 1944: s. 2(f)- Manufacture- Printing 
B 
on duty paid GI paper- Process of printing carried out by the C 
assessee according to the design and specification of the 
customer depending on its requirement - Bulk orders 
received from customer, which needed said paper as a 
wrapping/packing paper for packing of its goods - On the 
paper, logo and name of the product is printed in colourful o 
form -After carrying out the printing as per the requirement 
of the customer, the same is delivered to the customer in 
jumbo rolls without slitting - Whether the process of printing 
amounts to manufacture - Held: If the transformation in the 
original article brings out a distinctive or different use in the E 
article then the same would amount to manufacture - In the 
instant case, process of particular kind of printing has resulted 
into paper with distinct character and use of its own which it 
did not bear earlier - Therefore, the test of no commercial 
user without further process would be applied - The process F 
of printing thus amounted to manufacture. . 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: No doubt, the paper in-question was meant 
for wrapping and this end use remained the same even G 
after printing. However, whereas blank paper could be 
used as wrapper for any kind of product, after the printing 
of logo and name of the specific product of Parle 
thereupon, the end use was now confined to only that 
particular and specific product of the said particular H 
. 
851 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A company/customer. The printing, therefore, is not merely 
a value addition but has now been transformed from 
general wrapping paper to special wrapping paper. In 
that sense, end use has positively been changed as a 
result of printing pro~ess undertaken by the assessee. 
B The process of the said particular kind of printing has 
resulted into a product, i.e., paper with distinct character 
and use of its own which it did not bear earlier. Thus, 
the 'test of no commercial user without further process' 
would be applied. This Court in *Sen10-Med Industries 
C Pvt. Ltd. emphasised that there has first to be a 
transformation in the original article and this 
transformation should bring out a distinctive or different 
use in the article, in order to cover the process under 
the definition of 'manufacture'. These tests are satisfied 
D in the present case. [Paras 10, 12] [859-C-F; 860-F-G] 
*Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner 
of Central Excise, Mumbai 2015 (319) ELT 578 
(SC) - relied on. 
E 
Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. 1998 
(97) ELT 5 (SC); Deputy Commissioner of Sa/es 
Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Emaku/am 
v. Pio Food Packers 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 (SC) -
referred to. 
F 
G 
Case Law Reference 
-
1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC) 
2015 (319) ELT 578 (SC) 
1980 (6) E.L. T. 343 (SC) 
referred to. 
relied on. 
referred to. 
Para 5 
Para 8 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL 
No. 2733 of 2007 
From the Judgment and Order No. A/909-910/WZB/ 
MUM/2006-C-IV/EB dated 27.03.2006 of the Customs, Excise 
H and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-IV v. 
853 
M/S. FITRITE PACKERS, MUMBAI 
Mumbai in Appeal Nos. E/809 & 810/05 
A 
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms. 
Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. Krishna Prasad, Adv., with him, 
for the Appellant. 
M. H. Patel, Sandeep Narain, Padmavat Patil, M/s S. 
B 
Narain & Co., Adv., for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The dispute between the parties arose 
on two issues, viz.: 
c 
(i) Whether the goods in question, i.e., printed GI paper 
are classifiable under Chapter heading 4811.90, as 
claimed by the Revenue or they were to be classified 
under Chapter heading 4901.90 as the product of 0 
printing industry, as· per the stand taken by the 
respondenUassessee? 
(ii) Whether printing on duty paid GI paper would amount 
to manufacture? 
2. The Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated March 
E 
27, 2006 has decided the first issue in favour of the Revenue 
classifying the goods under Chapter heading 4811.90 thereby 
holding that the goods fall within the description of 'printing in 
rolls or sheets'. The assessee h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.