- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 5, 1991 whereby CWP No. 1013/80 filed by the respondent was allowed and the order of the Central Government dated May 23, 1980 was set aside and the respondent has been held entitled to refund of the amount of Rupees 13,02,634.94 p paid as excise duty with simple interest @ 12% per annum on the view that printed cartons being products of the printing industry had been exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-CE dated March 1, 1975, as amended.
(2.) The respondent owns a printing press wherein he manufacturers printing cartons. The case of the respondent is that cartons manufactured by respondent are a product of the printing industry and have been exempted from excise duty under the Notification No. 55/75-CE dated March 1, 1975, as amended by Notification dated May 5, 1975, when exemption from payment of excise duty was granted to "all products of printing industry, not being newspapers and periodicals". The said claim of the respondent for exemption from payment of excise duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated January 18, 1978. But, on appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), by his order dated April 18, 1978, allowed the said claim of the respondent for exemption in view of order No. 2057/77 dated December 5, 1977, passed by the Central Government allowing the revision application of M/s. Alibhoy Sharafally and Co. The Central Government, in excise of its powers of suo motu revision under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1994, by its order dated May 23, 1980, restored the order of the Assistant Collector dated January 18, 1978 and held that the printed cartons manufactured by the respondent could not be treated as products of the printing industry. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Central Government the respondent filed the writ petition in the Delhi High Court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) In the impugned judgment, the High Court has not agreed with the view of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India, (1984) 18 ELT 217 wherein the Karnataka High Court had held that printed cartons could not be regarded as a product of the printing industry and were not entitled to exemption to excise duty under the Notification dated March 1, 1975, as amended. The said decision of the Karnataka High Court in Rollatainers Ltd. (supra) has been affirmed by this Court in Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India, (1994) 72 ELT 793. In that case this Court has observed: "We agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Division Bench of the High Court. What is exempt under the Notification is the 'Product' of 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 carton, the card-board has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. 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." (p. 797) ;