TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to special wrapping paper. In that sense, end use has positively been changed as a result of printing process undertaken by the assessee. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) requires no interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/CO/16 & 17/2011 and E/189 & 190/2011 - Final Order Nos. 41052-41053 / 2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri B. Kumar, Senior Advocate for Shri R.Asokan, Advocate for the Respondents ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents supplied raw materials namely poly propylene granules, filler ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein set aside the demand, interest and penalties. Hence the department has come before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of Revenue, ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed grave error in holding that the respondent is the real manufacturer of the goods when no manufacturing activity was carried out by them. The respondent was only printing the names of the customers on the PP bags / sacks manufactured by the job worker. The said activity of merely printing the name of the customers does not amount to manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice to allege that the respondents are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. The ld. AR has relied upon the decision in the case of J.G.Glass Industries (supra). The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the respondents are not merely printing the names of the customers but also doing packing of the sacks. Further, the said decision has been considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Fitrite Packers (supra). The facts relating to the issue that was analyzed in the said decision is as under:- The respondent/assessee herein purchased GI paper from the market which is already duty paid base paper. On this paper, the process of printing is carried out by the assessee according to the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to only that particular and specific product of the said particular company/customer. The printing, therefore, is not merely a value addition but has now been transformed from general wrapping paper to special wrapping paper. In that sense, end use has positively been changed as a result of printing process undertaken by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the process of aforesaid particular kind of printing has resulted into a product, i.e., paper with distinct character and use of its own which it did not bear earlier. Thus, the test of no commercial user without further process‟ would be applied as explained in paragraph 20 of Servo-Med Industries (supra). The aforesaid paragraph is extracted hereunder. 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said product commercially usable that the second test laid down in the judgment leads to manufacture .. 12. This Court emphasised that there has first to be a transformation in the original article and this transformation should bring out a distinctive or different use in the article, in order to cover the process under the definition of manufacture‟. These tests are satisfied in the present case. 13. As a result, present appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal and restoring the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 6. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Fitrite Packers had considered the decision laid in the case of J.G. Glass Industries (supra). Following the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
