ROLLATAINERS LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S. MOHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ROLLATAINERS LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 1994 
B 
(KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-/tem 68 of the First Schedule--
Central Excise Rules, 1944-Rule &-Exemption Notification No. 55175 dated 
March 1, 1975-Be11efit of-Printed Cartons-Whether "Products of Printing 
i11dustry'~eld, 'No.-printed cartons are products of Packaging in-
C 
dustry-Manufacntrers of printed cartons not entitled to benefit of Exemption 
Notification. 
The appellant - company, manufacturer of printed cartons, claimed 
that printed cartons were a product of the Printing Industry and, as such, D 
exempt from excise duty under the Notification No. 55175 dated March 1, 
1975. However, the Superintendent of Central Excise stated that printed 
cartons were not a product of the Printing Industry and hence not eligible 
for exemption under the Notilication as they were a product of the 
Packaging Industry. The writ petition liled against this order was allowed. 
On appeal, the High Court reve.rsed the judgment of the Single Judge and E 
dbmissed the writ petition liled by the appellant - Company. 
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court. The question 
for consideration in this appeal was whether printed cartons manufac-
tured by the appellant - company were "products of the Printing Industry' F 
and as such, exempt from payment of duty of excise under Exemption 
Notification No. 55/75 dated March 1, 1975 as amended from time to time . 
. The appella:tt contended that all products, on which some printing 
was done, were the product of the Printing Industry. It was alleged that 
the cost involved in printing a carton was much more then the price of the G 
paper or-other material used for making the carton. It was urged that most 
of the stages through which the printed carton as a product was processed 
related to printed and primarily the printing machines and presses were 
used in the process. It was thus contended that the product was of Printing 
Industry and not of Packaging Industry. 
H 
663 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. An ordinary carton without any printing on it is a 
completed product and undisputably the product of Packaging Industry. 
It does not cease to be the product of Packaging industry as and when 
some printing is done on the said carton. To a common man in the trade 
and in common parlance a carton remains a carton whether it is a plain 
carton or a printed carton. The extreme contention that all products, on 
which some printing is done, are the product of the Printing Industry 
cannot be ·accepted. [667-D-E-F] 
C 
1.2. What is exempt under the Notification is the "product" or 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 card-board would not make it a carton. In the process 
of manufacturing the printed cartons, the card-board has to be cut, 
printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. 
D 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. [669-E-F] 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4770 of 
1994 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.90 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. No. 1795 of 1984. 
AK. Ganguli, Josephvallapally, Barish Salve, P. Parmeshwaran, 
Dalip Tandon, K. Swami, V.J. Francis, Padmakumar, Ms. Sushma Suri and 
Mrs. Poonam Madan for the Appellants. 
G. Ramswamy, Ravinder Narain, Ms. Amrita Mitra, and S. 
Sukumaran for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment/Order of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special Leave granted. 
The question for consideration in this appeal is whether printed 
cartons manufactured by the appellant • company are "products of the 
H Printing Industry'' and as such, are exempt from payment of duty of excise 
ROLLATAINERS LTD. v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 
665 
under Exemption Notification No. 55/75 dated March 1, 1975 as amended A 
·,from time to time. The question was answered by a learned single Judge 
of the Karnataka High Court in the affirmative and the writ petition filed 
by the appellant under Article 22£J/227 of the Constitution of India was 
allowed. Writ appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.