CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1 Central Excise Appeal No. 28504 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 477/2013-CE dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.).

M/s. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., Appellant(s)

No. 37/3, Basavanapur Main Road, Bhattarahalli Village, Bangalore – 560 049.

VERSUS The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate, Respondent(s)

Central Revenue Building, PB No. 5400, Queen’s Road, B angalore – 560 001.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Ganesh S., Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the R espondent CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MR PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Final Order No. 20032 /2026 DATE OF HEARING: 22.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 16.01.2026 DR. D.M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.477/2013-CE dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Manifold Business Forms (Laser RTC (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops) on job work basis. On the basis of investigation, show-cause notice was issued to them on 14.10.2010 alleging that these forms being classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 48204000 attracting Central Excise duty; also they had failed to include the cost of pre-printed stationery on the paper supplied by them in discharging the appropriate duty on clearances made to M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Bangalore. Accordingly, it was proposed to recover duty of Rs.7,73,822/- along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Manifold Business Forms and carrying out the activity of printing on the paper supplied by the customers. On the issue of valuation, the duty of Rs.1,04,192/- with interest has already been paid, which they are not disputing in the present appeal; however, against the demand of the balance amount relating to their printing activity on Government of Karnataka Watermarked Paper meant to be used for issuing RTC [Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops], the present appeal has been filed. He has submitted that the Department has demanded excise duty by wrongly classifying the product under heading 48204000 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He has submitted that the appellant carried out only the activity of printing, which does not amount to manufacture in view of the following judgments:-

i. Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2024(8) TMI 1398 – CESTAT, Bangalore]

ii. Chromaprint (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. CGST & CE, Coimbatore [2024(3) TMI 493 – CESTAT Chennai]

iii. Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy [2000(117)

ELT 333 (Tri. Chennai)]

iv. Commissioner Vs. Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd. [2000(120)

ELT A191(SC)]

3.2. Also, he has submitted that even if it is considered as the process of printing resulted into manufacture, the printed paper is classifiable under Chapter heading 4901 / 4911 which attracts ‘nil’ rate of duty. In support, he has referred to the following judgments:-

i. Nagpur Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur [2020(2)

TMI 283 – CESTAT, Mumbai]

ii. CCE Vs. Gopsons Papers Ltd. & anr. [2015(10) TMI 443 –

Supreme Court]

iii. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2015(4) TMI 357 –

Supreme Court]

iv. Kayen Print Process (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2007(213) ELT 355 (Tri. Bang.)]

3.3. Referring to the Board’s Circular No.11/91-CX.4 dated 15.10.1991, he has submitted that cheques, forms, stock certificates, bills of lading, documents of title, rail tickets are classifiable under Heading 4901.90. Further, he has sub