S.C. Jain, Member (J)

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Muthuvel Industries (hereinafter called the appellants) manufacture, amongst other things, office files using tag or slip, lever arch files, fibre board files with the brand and description printed on the front page. The appellants claimed that the printed office files were products of printing industry attracting exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1st March, 1975 (as amended). The concerned Assistant Collector rejected the claim of the appellants.

2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras who by his Order-in-Appeal No. 2085/80 dated 20-11-1980 under C. No. V/68/31/80 also rejected the appeal filed by the appellants holding that files manufactured by the appellants fall under item 68 and are liable to duty. He observed as under :

".... The question whether these constitute products of the printing industry depends on the facts whether in respect of these products printing virtually constitutes the culminating process of manufacture for obtaining the end product. Obviously, this is not the case in respect of files in question, inasmuch as even without printing these files become fully operative and useful as files. Therefore, the files do not pass the test and it has to be held that they fall outside the purview of the products of the printing industry."

3. Not satisfied with the said order passed by the Appellate Collector the appellants filed a Revision Application before the Government of India, which now stands transferred to this Tribunal, to be heard as an appeal.

4. We have heard Shri K.P. Jagdeesan, Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. Zutshi, SDR for the department and gone through the record.

5. The question to be decided is whether office files with tags and office files with clips with the brand and description printed on the front page are liable to duty under item 68 or not.

6. Shri K.P. Jagdeesan, learned counsel for the appellants argued that before denying exemption benefit to the appellants under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1st March 1975 as amended, the department should have issued a show cause notice to the appellants. Non-issuance of show cause notice violates the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside.

7. The second point raised by Shri Jagdeesan is that the assessing authority who passed the Order-in-Original did not pass a detailed order rejecting the claim of the appellants. In the absence of a detailed order the appellants could not take up all the points before the appellate authority and it has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. On merits Shri Jagdeesan, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the printed office files are products of the printing industry. He cited a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Rollatainers Limited and Ors. v. Union of India (1984 ECR 1815) only for the purpose of drawing our attention towards the Encyclopaedia of 'How It's Made' edited by Donald Clarke wherein the meaning of the term 'Printing' has been given. In that treatise, the term 'printing' is defined thus :

"A part from the obvious books, magazines and newspapers, the products of the printing industry are many and diverse. They include posters, banknotes, telephone directories, postage stamps, record sleever, wall papers, cartons, plastic containers and many other forms of packaging ."

According to Shri Jagdeesan, as per the definition of the term 'printing' as given in the Encyclopaedia of How It's Made the printed office files with tags and clips are products of printing industry. He pointed out that calendar is also a product of the printing industry and exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1st March, 1975.

8. Shri Jagdeesan, the learned counsel, advanced his arguments by saying that in the process of manufacture of the files