ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The learned advocate for the appellants pleads that when a duty paid plain polyester film is printed with the name, address and other details of a product, and such film is laminated on the duty paid metallised polyester film with the use of adhesive, no new product emerges. It is not disputed that the laminated film with the particulars printed on it is used for packing products, in this case liquors and wines. He contends that the process of printing/lamination of duty paid plastic film does not amount to manufacture. His further contention is that even after the above process, the goods remain in the same tariff heading 39.20 which covers plastic films whether or not metallised. This, according to him, denotes that no manufacturing process has taken place and so no duty is leviable on the final product, printed laminated polyester film.
3. The learned advocate also argues that his product falls under heading 49.01 of CETA (attracting nil rate of duty) which covers products of printing industry. In support of this alternative submission, the following case law is cited, (a) Metagraphs P. Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC), (b)CCE v. Adhunik Plastic Industries 1998 (98) ELT 365 (T), (c)Sri Kumar Agencies and Ors. v. CCE 2000 (37) RLT 178 (T), (d) CCE v. Reliance Printers 2000 (93) ECR 105 (T), etc. In all these cases, it is held that when a printed polyester film communicates a message to the buyer that the product contained in the packaging is or not of his choice, this product is a product of printing industry, classifiable under Chapter 49.
4. The bench observes that the appellants have not taken this plea of alternative classification under Chapter 49 before the lower authority.
5. The learned Jt. CDR strongly contended that when a printed film is laminated on a metallised polyester film, a new product does emerge and a separate classification under sub-heading 3920.17 is provided for such goods in the tariff. The mere fact that the product in question falls under the main heading 39.20 does not mean that there is no process of manufacture. The department successfully demonstrated that there is a process of manufacture and the resultant product is marketable and therefore dutiable. On the contention of the learned advocate that the resultant product is classifiable under chapter heading 49.01, he argued that such a plea is being put forward for the first time before the Tribunal and therefore should not be taken cognisance of.
6. The rival contentions have been taken note of. We observe that the plea that the product in question would fall under chapter heading 49, in view of the various decisions on this issue, is a legal plea and can be taken even before a higher appellate forum. We are aware that the issue of classification under chapter heading 49 has not been gone into by the lower authority. It is therefore felt that in the interest of justice the present dispute should be remanded to the original authority to examine whether the goods could be classified under Chapter 49 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
7. The matter is remanded to the original authority with the directions that the matter be adjudicated upon to decide whether the product falls under Chapter 49 of the CETA, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard. All issues raised in the appeal are left open for fresh consideration.