w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur V/S Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.

    Final Order No. A/89719/2017-WZB/EB in Appeal No. E/2966/2006

    Decided On, 26 September 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAJU
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) And For Respondents: M.H. Patil, Advocate



Judgment Text


1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture and clearances of different variety of paper falling under Chapter heading No. 48 of the CETA, 1985. The Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, New Delhi vide S. No. 797(E), dated 29-9-1995 declared the respondent's unit as a "mill producing News Print" and for the purpose of Chapter 48 "News Print" is defined under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998 as a paper of kind - (a) intended for the printing of newspapers; and (b) manufactured by a manufacturer of newsprint specified under Schedule 1 of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, and supplied against a purchase order placed upon such manufacturer by a newspaper, which is registered by the Registrar of Newspapers of India under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of 1867). During scrutiny of the records, it was noticed that the respondent had sold "newsprint" papers (4801) without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon to the following customers, who were registered under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

(a) Ashwani Printers, Bangalore

(b) Andhra Law Times, Hyderabad

(c) Golden Gate Success Line, Bangalore.

A show cause notice was issued demanding duty of excise on the ground that on perusal of the registration certificate of the above customers, it was revealed that they were engaged in publication of monthly/fortnightly journals and educational text books. None of the above were engaged in the publication of newspapers publication. Therefore, the supply of so called newsprint papers does not fall under the newsprint as defined under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of excise duty proposed in the show cause notice and also imposed penalty and demanded interest. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was allowed after appreciation of various details and definition of Newsprints as provided under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998, therefore, the Revenue is before us.

2. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that admittedly the buyer of the goods are not engaged in printing of newspaper. Therefore, the paper supplied by the respondent is not a newsprint. He submits that though the newsprint can be used for printing of newspaper as well as books. However, it is necessary that the papers supplied by the respondent should, be used for printing of newspaper. Therefore, it will not fall under the category of newsprint, accordingly, the paper supplied by the respondents are liable for duty. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

(a) P.S.V. Iyer : AIR 1960 Ori. 221, 1960 11 STC 608 Orissa

(b) Express Printing Press : 1983 (52) STC 290 (Bom.)

(c) Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd : 2012 (286) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)

(d) Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors : 1993 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757

(e) Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998

(f) Long title of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, preamble, preliminary on interpretation.

3. On the other hand, Shri M.H. Patil, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterates the findings in the impugned order. He further submits that as per the documentary evidence such as order issued by Govt. of India to the respondent giving a status as Mill Producing News Print, purchase orders of all the buyers and registration certificate of the buyers issued by Registrar of Newspapers in India. As per these documents, the respondent's supply of paper is clearly falls under the newsprint as defined under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998. He submits that it is not necessary that the newsprint supplied by the assessee should be compulsorily used for printing of newspaper in order to qualify as newsprint. The only criteria for newsprint is to fulfill the condition of the notification, which is not under dispute. Accordingly, the respondents have correctly cleared the goods, i.e., "newsprint" on which no excise duty paid. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the only dispute involved in the present case is that whether the newsprint supplied by the respondent falls under the definition of newsprint as provided under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998, which reads as under:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Note 3 to Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) the Central Government hereby defines newsprint for the purposes of the said Chapter 48 as paper of a kind:

(a) Intended for the printing of newspapers, and

(b) Manufactured by a manufacturer of newsprint specified under Schedule 1 of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 and supplied against a purchase order placed upon such manufacturer by a newspaper which is registered by the Registrar of Newspapers for India under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867).

3.1 As per the above definition, the paper should be of a kind, which is intended for printing of newspaper, it is not necessary that such paper should be compulsorily used for printing of newspaper. In the present case there is no dispute that the paper supplied by the respondent is of a kind which can be used for printing of newspaper and the second criteria is that it should be manufactured by a manufacturer of newsprint specified under Schedule 1 of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962. On perusal of the order dated 20-9-1995 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, the respondent's mill has been notified in pursuance of Item 3 of Schedule 1 read with sub-clause (e) of Clause 2 of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962, as a mill producing newsprint. Therefore, the aforesaid criteria of mill being a manufacturer of newsprint is not under dispute. The other criteria is that the newsprint should be supplied against a purchase order placed upon such manufacturer by a newsprint, which is registered by the Registrar of Newspaper for India under the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. As per the registration certificate of the buyers produced by the respondent, it is observed that the buyer is registered by the Registrar of Newspaper for India as a "newspaper". As per this certificate, the criteria of buyer to be registered as newspaper under the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 also stand fulfilled. It is not necessary that the buyer should be compulsorily print the newspaper and the newsprint supplied by the respondent should be used in printing of such newspapers. The criteria is limited to the buyer should be registered as newspaper, which is not under dispute. Therefore, in our considered view, the newsprint supplied to the various buyers are clearly covered under the definition of "newsprint" as provided under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998.

3.2 Ld. AR strongly argued on the other provision to establish that the newsprint supplied by the respondent is not a newsprint as the same was not used for printing of newspaper. In this regard, we find that for the purpose of Central Excise when the newsprint is clearly defined this will prevail over the term of newsprint as specified under any other Act or law. Therefore, when for the purpose of Chapter 48 newsprint is defined then only criteria fixed for the newsprint in the Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998 should be considered and there is no need to resort to the interpretation of term newsprint from any other law.

3.3 As regards the criteria of newsprint as per definition given under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998 there is no dispute that such criteria stand fulfilled. Therefore, the supply made by the respondent to various newspapers is indeed newsprint. The ld. Commissioner in his finding has elaborately considered all the issues on the facts as well as on law point. He has also considered certificate of the buyer, purchase order and the registration of the respondent, thereafter came to the conclusion that the goods supplied by the respondent is a newsprint, the entire proceedings of the show cause notice and adjudication order is based on the end use of newsprint, which is not the condition provided for defining the newsprint under Notification No. 23/98-C.E., dated 1-8-1998. As per our above observation, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue's appeal
OR

Already A Member?

Also