9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessable value - appellant carrying process of metalising/lacquering on duty paid polyester film. He submitted that during the relevant period the activity was considered as not amounting to manufacture and the classification lists filed were also approved – Held that:- lamination/metalising/lacquering polyester film does not amount to manufacture and therefore question of collecting duty, let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penditure admissible from the gross price to arrive at the assessable value. 2. Ld. counsel submitted that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of metallised/lacquered/laminated polyester film. They were carrying our process of metalising/lacquering on duty paid polyester film. He submitted that during the relevant period the activity was considered as not amounting to manufacture and the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f polyester film does not amount to manufacture. When the process does not amount to manufacture, the question of collecting differential duty does not arise. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand, submits that in the case of Metlon India v. CCE reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 479 (Tri-Del), the Tribunal had taken a view that metallization of polyester film amounts to manufacture and in this decision, the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that he has to pay duty, if in law, he is not bound to pay duty. 5. In the case of Kaveri Metallising Coating Inds. it was held that metallization/lacquering and laminating on duty paid polyester film does not amount to manufacture. This decision was followed Metlex (I) P. Ltd. The Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia we take note of the fact that it was only a decision on the stay application filed by the appellant and not a final decision. Therefore, the same is not binding. Thus, while the decisions cited by the ld. DR are not applicable to the facts of this case, the decisions cited by the ld. counsel are squarely applicable. In view of the above, we agree with the ld. counsel that lamination/metalising/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
