TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's goods - appeal allowed. - E/864 & 865/08 - A/91648-91649/17 - Dated:- 29-12-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Raju, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for appellant Shri. Deepak S. Chavan, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The facts of the case is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the CETA, 1985 in reel form on payment of duty to their various cutting centers for getting them converted into sheet form. From these cutting centers the goods were sold in wholesale trade to various buyers under commercial invoices. The appellant also supplied some packing materials to these cutti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i-Mum) c) Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. - 2000 (115) ELT 32 (sc) d) Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. - 2006 (193) ELT 6 (SC) 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the very same issue in the appellant's own case has been decided and the same was affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court. The judgement of the Tribunal in earlier order in appellant's own case is reproduced below: 6. In the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) the point of dispute was as to whether printing/decoration of Glass bottles amounts to manufacture and also whether the printing/decoration charges would be includible in the assessable value of the glass bottles, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rda Factory Limited v. CCE (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. We find that the same view had been taken by the Tribunal in the appellant's own case decided vide final order No.607/2002-A, dated 3-12-2002, the SLP filed by the Government to the Hon ble Supreme Court which has been dismissed. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeals are dismissed. 5. In view of the above judgement, which is on the identical facts in the appellant's own case the issue is no longer res integra. As regards the judgement relied upon by the Ld. AR are on different facts particularly in the Apex Court Judgement in the Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. (supra), the fact was that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
