9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DP fabrics coated with LDPE remains laminated woven HDPE fabrics. The laminated HPDE fabrics that comes into existence due to the process of lamination cannot be held as a manufactured product attracting Central Excise duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1124-1126/2011-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/52124-52126/2017-EX(DB)-52126/2017-EX(DB) - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Shri. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.K. Manjhi, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran All these appeals are directed against the order in original no. -2/D-01/2011 dated 12.02.2011. Since all these appeals raise common questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s through the entire case records specifically takes us to the show cause notices and read paragraph 18 wherein it is admitted that the process of manufacture of laminated woven fabric is that LDPE granules are fed into the hopper of extruder. The granules are melted by heater, the melted LDPE drops on moving HDPE fabrics and pressed between two calendar rolls to proper bonding. The laminated / coated fabrics is continuously wound into rolls on the winder. It is her submission that the show cause notice itself admits and accepts that the raw material is HDPE woven fabric and the finished goods is laminated HDPE fabrics. She would submit that there is no change in the raw material used. She would submit that though it may be the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai 2014 (304) ELT 145 (Tri-Mumbai) wherein a similar process of manufacturing was held to be amounting to manufacture of the new product. He would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brakes India Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise 1998 (101) ELT 241 (SC) for the same proposition that by adopting a particular process if transformation takes place which makes the product having a different character and use of its own then such process would amount to manufacture. For the same proposition he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Mills Ltd. Vs. UOI 1988 (37) ELT 471 (SC) and Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 1990 (49) ELT 326 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as amounting to (manufacture; or) iii) Which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schelue, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or re-labeling of containers including the declaration or alteration or retails ale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to consumer. 10. It can be seen from the above reproduced definition that manufacture includes any process which is incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufacture product as (i) reproduced here in above. 11. We are not concerns with the definitions of the manufacture in (ii) (iii). In the case in hand there is no process which has been undertaken by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 513 (SC) Hon ble Supreme Court has held that galvanization of steel tubes does not amount to manufacture which is more or less identical to the issue in hand as in that case revenue sought to demand duty on the ground that galvanization of the steel tubes brings into existence new product which has got specific use in specific industries. 14. We find that the above decision of the Hon ble Apex Court are directly on the point which has been canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. 15. As regards the various case laws cited by the ld. DR we find that they are correct in the factual circumstances of those case. In the case in hand the ratio of decisions as cited hereinabove are directly in issue of whether lamination will am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
