2015 (7) TMI 1002 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacturing activity or not - whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes and printing on them by a job worker would amount to manufacture as defined under the Central Excise Act - Held that - t the processes undertaken do not bring into existence a new commodity. - appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in R.G.L. Convertors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2003 (3) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and there is no further appeal, thereby the Order of the Tribunal had become final. The Tribunal in R.G.L. Convertors case 2003 (3) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI had followed the order of the Tribunal in Lakshmi Packaging (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 1999 (12) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MADRAS . In which case, the question involved was the activity of printing of papers inter alia cork tipping paper for cigarette corks. In other words, the facts are identical. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1) Whether the subject processes of printing, slitting, and winding Cork Tipping Paper amount to manufacture.
2) Whether the processes undertaken by the assessee result in the creation of a new commodity.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Central Excise Appeals were filed regarding the determination by CESTAT that the processes of printing, slitting, and winding Cork Tipping Paper do not constitute manufacturing. The industrial concern received paper in jumbo rolls, cut them into smaller strips, and returned them as bobbins for use in manufacturing filtered cigarettes. The Commissioner issued a notice alleging turnover suppression related to the manufacturing of printed cork tipping paper. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing previous cases and distinguishing a larger Bench order.

Issue 2:
The main dispute revolved around whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes and printing on them constitutes manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the processes did not amount to manufacture. The appellant argued that while many Tribunals had similar rulings, the Calcutta Tribunal had a different view. However, the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case clarified that certain printing activities do not fall under the definition of manufacturing. The appellant also referenced previous cases dismissed by the Supreme Court, indicating that the issue had already been settled. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.