Full Judgment
2. No one was present on behalf of the respondents. We, therefore, heard Shri Sumit Das, learned JDR and perused the records.
3. We observe that the Collector (Appeals) has mentioned in the impugned order, after seeing the impugned product, that it consists of tapering sheets of paper bearing pictorial representation of a human being next to a television set with the letters in bold black capitals "Salora" in English script on one side and the Devanagari script on the other. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the product by itself has no functional utility; it is hung in shops as an advertisement display.
The Collector (Appeals) classified the impugned product under Chapter 49 holding that the essential character of the hanger is that of a advertising display material as provided by the characters and letters printed on it and without these it would be nothing but a cut piece of paper. We find nothing wrong in the findings of the Collector (Appeals). Essential characteristics of the product is on account of printing and as such product is classifiable only under Chapter 49.
This was the view of the Tribunal in the case of Ajanta Prints Arts v.C.C.E., Bombay, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 406 (Tribunal) in which the classification of a product called Hanging Cards was involved. The Tribunal held that the printing is not incidental or ancillary but has been done with the intention to advertise the product. We also find that Note 11 to Chapter 48 which provides that "except for the goods of Heading No. 48.14 or 48.21 paper, paper board, cellulose wadding, and articles thereof, printed with motive, characters or pictorial representation, which are not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods, fall in Chapter 49" clearly exclude classification of the impugned product under sub-heading 4823.90. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.