1999 (2) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the same common order and are therefore being disposed of in this common order. 2. The assessees in this case were engaged in the manufacture of polythene bags. The name of the user buyer was printed upon these bags. The assessees had claimed printing ink as an eligible input. The Assistant Collector accepted this contention of the assessee. The Department then approached the Collector (Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd had distinguished them. In the Multilayer Composites judgment, printing ink was held to be an eligible input. Shri Mondal also refers to the Single Member judgment in the case of Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. [1996 (84) E.L.T. 293] in which in exactly identical circumstances, the Tribunal held that printing ink was an input for printing brand name and manufacturers name on paper bags. 5. In v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X