9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respective customers. The respondents were clearing the printed aluminium foils on payment of excise duty. On 23-11-1982 the respondents sent a letter to the Asstt. Collector taking the stand that printed aluminium foil was not dutiable and thereafter, the respondents would be removing goods without payment of duty. This led to two show cause notices in respect of different periods by the Assistant Collector demanding payment of duty on the ground that printing aluminium foils amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 and the respondents were liable to pay duty. The respondent contested the notices. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the notices while the Collector set aside the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the same tariff sub-item since that view is contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Laminated Packagings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (SC). 5. However, of the three aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, the earliest, namely, Swastik Packaaging, Bombay - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217, is important for another reason. Two of the three Members did not deal with the aspect of manufacture but the Third Member, in a separate order, dealt with this aspect and held that mere printing on the foil does not convert the same into an article of a new character and, therefore, printing does not amount to manufacture for excise purposes. (See paragraphs 20 and 21 of the reported order). 6. Shri Vijay Singh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f making it suitable and serviceable for packing biscuits and sweets applying gum on one side of the foil. The High Court held that the process conducted by the assessee did not amount to manufacture and the pre-processed and post-processed articles were not distinct and, therefore, the process was undertaken only to make the foil more attractive. 7. Following the decision in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and the view expressed by one of the members in Swastik Packaging we hold that by printing Aluminium Foil, a new and distinct commercially known product did not come into existence and there was no manufacture involved. 8. In the light of what we have indicated above, the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is tenable and appeals dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
