TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal, Member (J)]. In both these appeals, the issue involved is as to whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82. 2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that in Appeal No. 1847/85-D the appellants are manufacturer of P.P. foods falling under T.I. 1-B of CET. They are packing their products in glass jars/bottle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat goes into packing cannot be treated as raw material or component parts . In appeal No. 1866/85-D the issue is the same but the facts are different i.e. to say in that case the appellants bring into their factory duty paid product called Coproco adhesive falling under T.I. 68 and use the same in fixing the label on the unit containers meant to contain P.P. foods. 3. Arguing on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1985 (19) E.L.T. 96 (which has been referred to in the Impugned Order-in-Appeal) is against the contention of the appellants, Shri Vaish submitted that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case the judgment of the Tribunal is no longer a good la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
