2001 (11) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant. Shri J.M. George, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The above appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal dated 19-9-95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The issue originates from the issuance of 4 show cause notices to M/s. Special Prints Ltd. demanding total central excise duty of Rs. 1,62,273 on 1303 Nos. of Des .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion order dated 22-10-90. The lower Appellate Authority rejected the appeals filed by both the appellants; hence these appeals. 2. We have heard Shri Pochkhanwala, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri J.M. George, DR, for the respondent. 3. We note that both the appellants had filed appeals on identical issue before the New Delhi Bench of the CEGAT against Order-in-Appeal dated 14-1-9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ants of affixing design on nickel perforated cylinders does not amount to manufacture so as to attract excise duty, set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allow these appeals with consequential relief, if any due to the appellants. Since the appeals are being allowed on the above ground, we do not go into the question of eligibility of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/86 whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X