9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for the Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The assessees were manufacturing plain plastic films falling under sub-heading 3920.31 of the CET. On payment of duty, these films were subjected to printing in a separate unit within the same factory. The classification, initially claimed, was under sub-heading 4901.90 which was approved by the department, but was later changed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urer, batch number, etc. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), he argued that the process undertaken in this case by the assessees was equal to the process undertaken by the manufacturers of the aluminium labels. 4. Shri H.K. Jain, ld. SDR arguing for the department, referred to Chapter Note 10 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not of his choice and his purchase of the commodity would be decided by the printed matter on the label. In this case, the printing on the sheet would enable the buyer to make a decision as to purchase or otherwise. Reading the batch number and date of manufacture, he would be able to make up his mind whether the goods were fresh enough to be consumed by him. Such details are not incidental, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
