UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus NANDI PRINTERS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 11-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS: 
A 
• 
'"'( 
v. 
NANDI PRINTERS PVT. LTD. 
JANUARY 11, 200 I 
[B.N. KIRPAL, RUMA PAL AND BRIJESH KUMA~, JJ.] 
B 
' 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944: 
Tariff Item No. 68-Exemption Notification-Printed cartons-Small-
scale industry-Classification of-Assessee manufactured playing cards as c 
well as printed cartons-Excise duty on printed cartons exempted-However, 
-
benefit of exemption not available if aggregate value under more than one 
~ 
tariff items exceedeq1 the statutory limit-But takin~ into considerction the 
aggregate value of playing cards and printed cartons the excise authorities 
held that the assessee was not a small-scale industry entitled to claim D 
exemption of excise duty on playing cards-High Court allowed the writ 
petition on the ground that clearances in respect of the printed cartons could 
not be taken into consideration as they were exempted-Correctness of-
~ 
Held: Both playing cards and printed cartons are excisable goods though 
attracting different rates of excise duty-Mere fact that rate of duty on 
printed cartons was NIL does not make them non-excisable goods-Hence, E 
excise authorities rightly held that assessee not entitled to the benefit of 
,,.. 
exemption notification by aggregating the value of the two items-Exemption 
Notification No.80180 dated 19-6-1980. 
The respondent manufactured playing cards as well as printed cartons. 
By virtue of Notification No. 80/80 dated 19-6-1980 printed cartons were F 
exempted from levy of excise duty. However, the notification denied the benefit 
to a manufacturer whose excisable goods falling under more than one tariff 
items exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. 
The excise authorities came to the conclusion that taking into 
G 
consideration the aggregate value of the goods cleared, i.e., playing cards 
... 
plus printed cartons the respondent could not be regarded as a small-scale 
industry since the turnover of the respondent exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. 
Therefore, the respondent was held liable to pay excise duty on the playing 
cards. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent on 
• 
the ground that clearance in respect of printed cartons could not be taken 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(200 I] I S.C.R. ' 
A into consideration. Hence this appeal. 
The following question arose before this Court:-
Whether for the purpose of levy of excise duty on the manufacture of 
playing cards the respondent can be regarded as a small scale industry or 
B not? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court had overlooked the fact that Clause (2) of 
the Exemption Notification dated 19-6-1980 denied the benefit of the said 
C Notification to· a manufacturer whose excisable goods falling under more 
than one item exceeded Rs. 20 la.khs: (332-CJ 
1.2. It is true that printed carto~s are not specified goods as conte~plated 
by the said notification dated 19-6-1980, but Clause.(2) of the said notification 
D refers to excisable goods falling under more than one. item of the First 
.Schedule. Both, playing cards which fall under Tarfrr Item 56 and printed 
.. cartons, which come under tariff Item 68, are excisable goods even though 
the rate of dufy on each of them may be different. The mere fact that the rate 
of duty on printed cartons was NIL by reason ofan exemption notification 
. would not make printed cartons non-excisable goods. The excise authorities 
E were, therefore, right in aggregating the value of the turnover of the two 
items and coming to the conclusion that the respondent was not a small scale 
industry which was entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 19-6-1980 in 
respect of clearance of playing cards. (332-E-F-GI 
. F 
, .... CCE v. Vazir Sultan ·Tobacc.o Co. ltd., J19961 83 ELT 3 and Wallace 
Flour Mills Company v. CCE, (1989144 ELT 598, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 392. of 
. 1992. 
G 
From the Judgme11t and Order dated 13.3.1991 of the High Court of 
.,, 
.. 
Kamataka in.WA 760/1989. 
_j.. 
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for P. Parmeswaran, for the Appellant and Nand · 
Kishore for S. Muralidhar for the. Respondent. 
. 
--
H 
Th'e Judgment of the Court was delivered b; 
r 
U.0.1. v. NAN DI PRINTERS PVT.LTD. [KIRPAL J.] 
331 
KIRPAL, J. The respondent herein at his printing press manufactures A 
playing card~ as well as printed cartons. Playing cards fall under Tariff Item 
56 of the Tariff Act, while printed cartons fall under Tariff Item 68. The 
question for cons

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