M/S. METAGRAPHS PVT. LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. METAGRAPHS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND K. VENKATASWAMl, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : 
First Schedule-Item 68-'Exemption Notification No. 55175-CE dated 
1.3.1975-Printed Aluminum Labels-Held, are products of printing 
C industry within the meaning of the Exemption Notification. 
The appellant-assessee manufactured 'Printed Aluminum Labels' 
which were printed on flatbed off-set printing press, and the printing 
was done on a deep off-set printing machine. The labels were to be 
D fixed to refrigerators, radios, air conditioners, telephone sets etc. The 
appellant claimed the said labels to be 'Products of printing industry' 
within the meaning of Exemption Notification No. 55175-CE dated 
1.3.t 975, and accordingly was allowed exemption from levy of duty 
by the Assistant Collector. But the Collector of Central Excise revoked 
the exemption and directed assessment of the goods under Item No.68 
E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The 
appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Central Excise and 
Gold (control) Appellate Tribunal, holding that the printing on the 
aluminum label being incidental to its use as a label or a wrapper, the· 
label inherently was not a piece of reading matter. Aggrieved, the 
assessee filed the appeals before this Court. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal was not right in concluding that the 
printed aluminum labels in question are not products of printing 
.. 
G industry. But for the printing, the aluminium label would serve no 
purpose and it is the printing on the aluminium sheet, which 
4... ... 
communicates the message to the buyer that makes the sheet as a 
label, unlike a carton printed or plain which always remained a carton. 
[876-D, 877-G[ 
H 
1.2. The label announces to the customer that the product is or 
872 
MET AGRAPHS PVT. LTD_ 1• COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [VENKATASWAMI,J.J 873 
is not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be A 
~ 
decided by the printed matter on the label. The printing of the label 
is not incidental to its use but primary in the sense that it communicates 
to the customer about the product and this serves a definite purpose. 
(877-H, 878-A( 
1.3. The product in the instant case, is the aluminium printed B 
label, which the printing industry has brought into existence. That 
being the position and further the test of trade having understood 
this label as the product of printing industry, there is no difficulty in 
holding that the labels in question are the products of printing 
industry. (878-B( 
c 
Rol/atainers Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1994) Supp. 
3 sec 293, referred to. 
2. It is true that all products on which some printing is done, 
are not the products of printing industry. It depends upon the nature D 
of products and other circumstances. Therefore, the issue has to be 
decided with reference to facts of each case. A general test is neither 
advisable nor practicable .. 1878-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3011-14 
of 1986. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6.86 of the Customs, Excise 
and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in O.B. No. 353, 357-
59 of 1986-B-1. 
F 
V. Lakshmikumaran, V. Sridharan and V. Balachandran for the 
Appellant. 
R. Mohan and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondent. 
""~-·· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
VENKATASW AMI, J. The only question that arises for our 
consideration in all these Appeals is whether 'Printed Aluminium Labels' 
(hereinafter referred to as "labels") manufactured by the appellant are 
'products of the printing industry' within the meaning ofNotificati.on 55/ H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 75-CE dated l.3.1975 (hereinafter called "the Notification) issued under 
Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 
~-
It is not in dispute that but for the exemption under the Notification, · 
the labels in question, would fall under item No. 68 of the First Schedule 
to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the "Act"). 
B The relevant portion of the said Notification is extracted below:-
c 
D 
13. 
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the 
Central Excise Rules. 1944, the Central Government hereby 
exempts goods of the description specified in the Schedule 
annexed hereto, and falling under Item No. 68 of the First 
Sch

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.