Printing processes on Cork Tipping Paper: Not considered manufacturing.

The case involved determining whether printing, slitting, and winding processes on Cork Tipping Paper constitute manufacturing and create a new commodity. The Central Excise Appeals addressed turnover suppression allegations related to manufacturing printed cork tipping paper. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, citing previous cases and distinguishing a larger Bench order. The Supreme Court clarified that certain printing activities do not amount to manufacturing, referencing prior cases and dismissing the appeals without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1) Whether the subject processes of printing, slitting, and winding Cork Tipping Paper amount to manufacture.
2) Whether the processes undertaken by the assessee result in the creation of a new commodity.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Central Excise Appeals were filed regarding the determination by CESTAT that the processes of printing, slitting, and winding Cork Tipping Paper do not constitute manufacturing. The industrial concern received paper in jumbo rolls, cut them into smaller strips, and returned them as bobbins for use in manufacturing filtered cigarettes. The Commissioner issued a notice alleging turnover suppression related to the manufacturing of printed cork tipping paper. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing previous cases and distinguishing a larger Bench order.

Issue 2:
The main dispute revolved around whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes and printing on them constitutes manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the processes did not amount to manufacture. The appellant argued that while many Tribunals had similar rulings, the Calcutta Tribunal had a different view. However, the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case clarified that certain printing activities do not fall under the definition of manufacturing. The appellant also referenced previous cases dismissed by the Supreme Court, indicating that the issue had already been settled. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

---