2008 (4) TMI 628 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the process of slitting, winding, and packing BOPP films amounts to manufacture.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the process of slitting, winding, and packing BOPP films does not amount to manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) based his decision on various cases cited by the respondent, including Premier Aryco India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Asha Parvo Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., C.C.E. v. Bloom Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., and Asamco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to a recent judgment by CESTAT in the case of Keylocks (I) Ltd. which followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The learned SDR representing the department argued that based on Chapter Note X of Chapter 39 of HSN and the explanatory note to HSN, the process of slitting, winding, and packing amounts to manufacture. The department's stance was that these processes are necessary to make the product marketable to the user, thus constituting manufacture.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on several decisions of the Tribunal and also considered the Larger Bench decision in Anil Dang v. C.C.E., Vapi. In light of these precedents and the reasoning provided, the appeal filed by the Revenue was found to have no merit and was consequently rejected. The judgment was pronounced in open court by Member (T) B.S.V. Murthy.