Page 213 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DOMINO PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX., DELHI-III 99

8443 39 10 which refers to ink jet printing machine. Thus, the impugned order
has classified the impugned [goods] as parts and accessories of goods of sub-
heading 8443 39 i.e. under sub-heading 8443 90 60. He submits that the goods are
not per se to be known as parts and accessories of printers. These are containers
containing ink to be used in printing machines. Although some of the impugned
products described as cartridges have been designed to be inserted into printing
machines, mere design for insertion into printing machines would not make the-
se parts or accessories of printing machines. Further the essential character to the
printing process is given by the ink and not the container thereof. Learned Coun-
sel without prejudice submits that the Customs have allowed clearance of identi-
cal imported goods by accepting the classification of the items in question under
Tariff Item 3215 without challenging the same. It is settled law that Bills of Entry
filed for import of identical ink/ink cartridges/reservoirs is an appealable order
and in the absence of any challenge of the department, the same has been final-
ized.
8. With regard to the denial of credit on the ground that mere change of
labels of printing ink make up cartridges and printing ink wash solution does not
amount to manufacture. The submission of the appellant is that by virtue of
Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 29, the activity of relabelling undertaken by the ap-
pellant in respect of wash solution amounts to manufacture.
9. He further submits that the department has taken the contradictory
stands, on the one hand the impugned order dated 28-9-2012 has confirmed the
demand that labelling of ink reservoirs, cartridges, etc. amounts to manufacture.
On the other hand, it has denied the credit on imported printing ink make up
cartridges and wash solution on the ground that such labelling does not amount
to manufacture. He has relied on the Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 32 to hold that
changing of labels or relabelling does not amount to manufacture.
10. The contention of the Learned Counsel is that once the duty has
been collected by the department, it is not open to the department to contend
that credit is not admissible as the process does not amount to manufacture.
Admittedly in this case, the appellant has cleared after relabelling of the goods
on payment of duty. If the activity of the appellant does not amount to manufac-
ture in such case the duty paid amounts to reversal of credit as per decision of
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises - 2013 (294)
E.L.T. 203 (Bom.).
11. He further submits that the appellant is regularly filing their excise
returns and wherein it has been specifically mentioned according to them, that
the activity of labelling or packing does not amount to manufacture and the said
declaration has been made in all ER.-1 returns which clearly shows that the de-
partment was well aware of the activities of the appellant. In that circumstance,
the extended period of limitation is not applicable.
12. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision namely Servo-Med In-
dustries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.), A.D. Steel Syndicate v. CCE -
1998 (103) E.L.T. 180 (Tri.-Del.), Safex Fire Services v. CCE - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 182
(Tri.-Mum.), CCE v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Del.)
and Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. - 1977 (1) E.L.T. J199
(S.C.).

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  261