9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Shri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the Appellant-Revenue and Shri P.K. Das, Manager (Commercial) for the respondents. 2. Shri Mishra submits that in the instant case, the input being rejected HDPE bags/sacks after being subjected to cutting, stitching and printing still remain HDPE/woven sacks without going any change either in name, character or use. The end-product still remain HDPE woven sacks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal). 2. In reply, Shri Das submits that in the present case, HDPE Woven Sacks undergone on change by cutting it with machines to a different small size, then stitched by stitching machines, then printing and sold to market as HDPE BAG . So a new product is coming, it is totally wrong to say, when there is no new product. Larger size woven sacks after cutting to small size for packing in small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of biri wrappers. Similarly, in the present case, cutting of rejected woven sacks into smaller size, folding and stitching is also a manufacturing activity. He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be rejected. 3. This Bench in the case of Headway Lithographic Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol.-I reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 658 (Tri. - Kolkata) held as under : Manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. [1998 (98) E.L.T. 365 (Tribunal); 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728 (Tribunal); 1999 (108) E.L.T. 280 (Tribunal); 1997 (94) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.); 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), 2001 (133) E.L.T. 610 (Tribunal); 2000 (116) E.L.T. 483 (Tribunal) relied on. (para 7)] . The facts of the present case are also similar of those of Headway Lithographic Co. case. In the Headway Lithographic Co. case, the wrappers ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
