By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 21, 2019:MUNICIPAL Printing Press, a unit of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), is engaged in processing / printing of various registers, forms, books, letters etc. [Heading 4820.10], and supplying the same to the other establishments governed by the MCGM.

A SCN was issued to the appellant demanding CE duty along with imposition of penalty and interest on the ground that printing of forms etc. which were fully exempted from payment of duty (till 28.02.2006) in terms of Notification No. 10/2003-CX dated 01.03.2003 were chargeable @ 8% ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 10/2006-CX dated 01.03.2006 and, therefore, the appellant is required to pay duty for the period 01.03.2006 to 31.03.2008.

Reference: Notification 10/2003-CX -

Notification 10/2003-CX was superseded by notfn. 10/2006-CX & the subject entry read -

The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty/interest. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence the appellant is before the CESTAT.

The Bench observed that the appellant had contended before the lower authorities that the stationery items are solely to be used by the various offices of MCGM and it cannot be sold in the open market and that, since the goods are not marketable, the same is not excisable. They also rely upon the decision in Deputy Chief Manager (Printing & Stationery), Central Railway Vs. CCE, Mumbai - I, 2015-TIOL-1024-CESTAT-MUM.

The Bench extracted portions from paragraph 5 of the said citation (supra) and noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that even though the goods were not sold as such, they were sent/transferred to their own other offices, outside the factory; that the goods may not necessarily be sold, but at the same time, they can be marketable.

The CESTAT, therefore, observed -

"…We do not find any material on record that the printed stationery of the appellant is marketable. It is well settled law that Revenue has to discharge the burden of test of marketability of the product. In the present case, as the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of test of marketability, the demand of duty cannot be sustained…"

Agreeing with the cited Tribunal decision, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2019-TIOL-552-CESTAT-MUM)