9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjay Jain, DR JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar: The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under:- 1.1 The appellant are manufacturers of tin containers and printed sheets falling under central excise tariff Heading NO.731000 and 721030 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff. During the period of dispute, the appellant received tin plated steel sheets from their customers for printing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules, 2002. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30.06.2005 dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Badri Narayan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some information, the same are product of printing industry classifiable under Chapter 49 where the rate of duty is nil, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Bombay reported in 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that printed aluminium labels are the products of printing industry and that the same view has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g was being done as per their customers specifications. The point of dispute is as to whether this activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture and whether the printed sheets would attract central excise duty under Heading No.7210.30 of the Tariff. 6. The appellant are printing various texts on the steel sheets received by them as per the design and the specifications of the sheet suppliers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
