9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(f) of the said Act - the process adopted by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture and accordingly, there is no basis for issuing a show cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P. No. 30071 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - T.S. Sivagnanam, J. Shri M. Sunil Kumar, for the Petitioner. Shri A.P. Srinivas, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 2. The petitioner, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act and also under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (TNVAT Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), is carrying on bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir reply stating that cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into specific width and different shapes did not amount to manufacture, as there was no change in the characteristics or the end-use of the tissue paper and reduction of width of duty-paid jumbo rolls cannot amount to manufacture. The assessee therein denied the allegations that they were manufacturing/making tissues of wet type and also denied the allegations that they were imparting fragrance to the napkins made by them. The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the show cause notice and confirmed the demand and imposed penalty holding that the assessee was the manufacturer of table napkins, toilet rolls and ordinary wet and fragranced facial tissues with dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cases (i) Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), (ii) Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 1995 (57) ECR 1 (SC) = 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), and (iii) Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., reported in 1998 (78) ECR 761 (SC) = 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the said decision reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) (cited supra), held as follows :- 19 . we hold that mere mention of a product in a tariff heading does not necessarily imply that the said product was obtained by the process of manufacturing. That, just because the raw material and the finished product came under two different headin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is seen that the process adopted by the petitioner is identical to that of the process which was adopted by the assessee in the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). Therefore, the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., is squarely covered to the case on hand. 6. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice warrants interference. Thus, following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., it is to be held that the process adopted by the petitioner does not amount to manufacture and accordingly, there is no basis for issuing a show cause notice for demanding Central Excise duty on the activity engaged by the petitioner. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
