TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts their goods therein. The raw materials M. G. Paper and ink were supplied by the 100% EOU. So their activity is considered as job work up to March 2000 and not 'manufacture' - demand withheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/507/2003-DB, E/508/2003-DB - 21038-21039/2017 - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Dr. Harish, AR, For the Appellant Mr. N. Anand, Advocate, For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ink to Maa printers for the manufacture of printed paper wallet on job work basis. M. G. Poster Paper is the major raw material for the manufacture of printed paper wallet and it is subjected to processes like cutting, printing, folding, creasing, etc., to manufacture printed paper wallet of required dimensions. The printed paper wallets are manufactured in the factory of Maa Printers as per specifications/dimensions provided by M/s. Kemwell International Ltd. and were supplied to M/s. Kemwell International Ltd. according to their production requirements. During the said period, invoices were raised by Maa Printers on M/s. Kemwell International Ltd. for only job work charges. Statements of various persons related to Maa Printers as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the Commissioner (a) has given a reasoned order by appreciating the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rightly held that there is no manufacture in mere printing of information. In support of this submission that the process carried out by the assessee does not amount to manufacture, he relied upon the following case laws: Headway Lithographic Co. Vs. CCE: 2015 (321) ELT 394 (SC) Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 1996 (88) ELT 630 (SC) Sri Kumar Agencies Vs. CCE: 2016 (344) ELT 507 (Tri. -Bang.) GG Automotive Gears Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2014 (308) ELT 546 (Tri. -Del.) OPG Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2016 (343) ELT 230 (Tri. -Chen.) Sre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by them have to be classified under Chapter Sub-Heading 4901.90 attracting 'Nil' rate of duty as per Chapter Note 11 and also as per Explanatory Notes of HSN of Chapter 48 and not under chapter Sub-Heading 4823.90. Hence, they are not liable for any excise duty. For not filing the declaration under Notification No.13/92, they have contended that when the activity carried on by them does not amount to 'manufacture', the question of filing the above declaration does not arise in law. The appellants have contended that even assuming but not admitting that there was a manufacture of goods which are excisable under Section 2(f)/(d) read with Section 3, the goods in question were supplied to kemwell which is a 100% EOU. Duty d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
