2006 (7) TMI 505 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Decision based on Apex Court's ruling, consideration of previous tribunal decision, question of limitation, classification under Heading 4901, printing of PVC films, manufacturing process determination, recall of order based on new evidence, relevance of another decision in the same case, need for reference to Larger Bench, consideration of subsequent decision.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involved a decision based on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Laminated Packing, which upheld that 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act was applicable. The appeal was allowed for de novo adjudication following the mentioned order.

2. The issue of printing of PVC films was raised, contending that a previous tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. Caprihans India Ltd. was not considered, leading to an error on the record. Additionally, questions regarding limitation and classification under Heading 4901 were highlighted as grounds for consideration.

3. The tribunal found that the decision in the Caprihans India Ltd. case was not cited before the Bench. It was noted that the process undertaken amounted to manufacture, as acknowledged by the appellants themselves. The submission regarding the printing of PVC sheets resulting in a new commercial identity was upheld.

4. A request for the recall of the order was made based on new evidence from a decision in the appellants' own case, which was found to be unrelated to the current matter concerning the classification of PVC films into products like shower curtains or table cloths.

5. Another decision in the same case, concerning the classification of printing PVC sheets, supported the view that the printing process resulted in a new identifiable product with a different commercial identity, aligning with the tribunal's earlier decision on manufacturing.

6. The tribunal concluded that there was no need for a reference to a Larger Bench, as the decisions in question did not present an apparent conflict. The subsequent decision not presented during the hearing did not alter the determination of the manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act.

7. Ultimately, the application was rejected as the tribunal found no reason to admit it based on the evidence and arguments presented, leading to the pronouncement of the judgment on 27-7-2006.