Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Johnson & Johnson Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. AT/120/MII/04 dated 29/12/2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the: CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy: seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? =======================================================

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II : Appellants

VS

M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. : Respondent

Appearance

Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.)for the Appellant Shri. V. S. Tejpal, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 25/3/2013 Date of decision: 25/3/2013

ORDER NO.

Per : P.K. Jain

This appeal filed by the Revenue against order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the are that the appellant is manufacturer of Printed Cloth Label, Aluminium Foil Label, Plastic Film Label and Printed Paper Label. There was dispute relating to classification and duty in respect of first three items. The matter reached up to the Honble Supreme Court and Honble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee. In the order, it was held that these items including paper printing labels are eligible for exemption as products of the Printing Industry. In view of decision of Honble Supreme Court demands were dropped by the original authority. Revenue filed appeal against the said order in respect of Printed Paper Labels. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as the said item (i.e. Printed Paper Labels) is also covered by the Honble Supreme Court judgment.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that there was no dispute about the classification of printed paper labels as same were classifiable under 4818.90 and were exempted vide Sr. No. 13 of Notification No. 228/86-CE dated 3/4/1986 as amended from time to time. He further submitted that there was no dispute about the printed paper label even before the Tribunal. Later on Honble Supreme Court has considered all the four items as product of printing industry and all the four items would therefore be eligible for NIL rate of duty. As far as printed paper labels are concerned even otherwise printed paper labels are chargeable to NIL rate of duty vide notification No. 228/86 dt. 3/4/86 as amended by Notification No. 259/86 dated 24/4/86.

3. Ld. A.R. reiterates the ground of appeal.

4. We have gone through the ground of appeal as also order of the Honble Supreme court. Printed paper labels classification was not under dispute and the said entry is chargeable to NIL rate of duty under Notification No. No. 228/86 dt. 3/4/86. In the appeal Honble Supreme court has held that in addition to the other type of printing paper label, printing paper label is product of printing industry and therefore chargeable to NIL rate of duty. The said product is therefore not chargeable duty. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.K. Jain Member (Technical)

sk

3