The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Student Almanac and teacher planner not exigible to excise duty. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the submission of the assessee that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes...
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Student Almanac and teacher planner not exigible to excise duty.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the submission of the assessee that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes a product of printing industry cannot be accepted.
In this case, the issue in dispute is regarding the classification of goods namely Student Almanac and teacher planner, Diaries, Workbook, Calendars, Note-Pads and Scrap books.
The appellant/assessee printed these goods and removed them at nil rate of duty classifying them under Chapter 49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which Chapter covers printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of printing industry.
The case of the Department is that these goods fall under Chapter 48 as ―Articles of Paper or of Paper Board and attract duty @ 12.5% ad valorem. It is also the case of the department that the assessee had wrongly not paid duty and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was invokable and that the Director of the assessee was liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed an equal amount of penalty on the assessee and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Director under Rule 26 of the Rules.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of demand only on two products namely Student Almanac and teacher planner and only for the normal period of limitation.
He set aside the demand for the extended period of limitation and also the penalty imposed on the assessee. He also set aside penalty imposed on the Director of the assessee.
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence of intention to evade payment of duty and suppression of facts because it was possible for the assessee to have entertained the belief that the Student Almanac and teacher planner were not exigible to duty and, therefore, to have not declared them in their excise returns.
The bench opined that there is no confiscation of the goods nor is there any allegation that any Cenvat credit has been wrongly taken.
The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the penalty on the director under Rule 26 of the Rules, added the bench.
In view of the above, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: M/s Sona Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeal
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55542 OF 2023
Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: Rajesh Kumar and K.K. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Ratnesh Kumar Mishra
