LexM/S. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 4 S.C.R. 576 , MIS. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA (Civil Appeal Nos.2729-2730 of 2004) MARCH 30, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Tariff Entry 39.19149.01 - Classification of security holograms - Embossing of coated metallised film and post embossing, there is adhesive coating and release coating which results in 0 holograms which ultimately is cut to size and utilized by customers of the appellant for security purposes - Held: By virtue of Note 2 to Entry 49, the security hologram part of the product is primary and the self adhesive part only incidental insofar as the user of the said goods is concerned E - Hence, product is classifiable u!TE 49.01. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The original coated metallised film that has been used by the appellant has already been classified F under sub-Heading 3920.36 as a flexible metallised film of plastic. The fact that it got laminated later would not take it out of this particular sub-Heading. On a cursory reading of entry 39.19, it becomes clear that it is part of a general scheme dealing with various items of plastics G and must be read together with 39.20 as 39.20 begins H with the expression "Other plates ....... ". So read, it is clear that what is important is that various sheets, films, etc. of plastic should become "self adhesive" in order 576 M/S. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD. v. COMM. OF CENTRAL 577 EXCISE, NOIDA to attract 39.19. If, in addition, there is printed matter on A such sheets, films etc., the question is whether the end product is properly classifiable under 49.01 which refers to other products of the printing industry or whether it falls within self adhesive sheets, films, etc. [Paras 7, 8] (595-B-E] B 2. The first thing to be noticed about tariff entry 49.01 is that it refers to printed books, newspapers and pictures. The printed books, newspapers and pictures, manuscripts, typescripts, maps and plans of all kinds, C are included within this entry whether they further the public interest in knowledge being disseminated or not. In fact, it becomes clear from a reading of the Explanatory Notes to "HSN" that this Heading would include a large number of "obvious products" which are set out in this Explanatory Note. On a reading of D the various products outlined in the Explanatory Note, it is obvious that they include a large number of products which have absolutely nothing to do with disseminating knowledge. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [583-F, H] [584-A, BJ [585-C] E Holographic Security Marking Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. C. C.E., Mumbai 2003 (151) E.L.T. 470; Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) - referred to. F 3. There is no genus in the expressions "printed books, newspapers, pictures". Indeed, it is clear that the expressions "manuscripts, typescripts and plans" which are also part of the Heading also do not reveal that there is any one genus to which all these items can G be attributed. All these expressions speak of printed matter. Newspapers, which are included within entry 49.01 are obviously products of the newspaper industry and not of the printing industry. The printing industry would therefore, refer to products of various industries H 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A other than the printing industry stricto senso, which has printed material on them. Thus, construed, it is clear, that Tariff entry 49.01 would also be attracted on the facts of this case. Note No. 2 to Entry 49 states that except "Except for the goods of Heading No. 39.18 or B 39.19, plastics, rubber and articles thereof, printed with motifs, chan:icters of pictorial representations, which are not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods, fall in Chapter 49." It is clear therefore, that the question resolves itself into whether printing is only incidental to C the primary use of the goods or is something more than something merely incidental. The primary use of the product is security and not the quality of being adhesive. The factor of adhesiveness is incidental to 0 the primary use to which the goods are put, namely, that they are to be used for security purposes. [Paras 13 to 16] [585-E-H] [586-A, B, D-G] E F G H Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) - relied on. Case Law Re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.