Aluminium foil printing not manufacturing new product under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision that printing on aluminium foil does not amount to manufacturing a new product under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The printed foil was not considered a distinct product attracting duty liability, aligning with previous case law interpretations. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, ruling that no manufacturing activity was involved in printing on aluminium foil.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether printing on aluminium foil amounts to manufacture for excise purposes.
- Whether printed aluminium foil is dutiable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The Department filed appeals against the Collector's order, challenging the decision that printed aluminium foil was not dutiable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

2. The respondents received duty-paid plain aluminium foils, printed them, and cleared the printed foils to customers. The Assistant Collector issued show cause notices demanding duty payment, considering printing as manufacture. The Collector reversed this decision.

3. The relevant tariff item covered aluminium foils, printed or unprinted. Both types were dutiable under item 27(c) of the Act.

4. The respondent relied on Tribunal decisions stating that printed aluminium foil did not attract duty under the same sub-item. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Laminated Packagings (P) Ltd. case contradicted this view.

5. The Tribunal's earlier decision in Swastik Packaging case held that printing on foil did not amount to manufacture. This aspect was crucial in determining duty liability.

6. The Department cited Johnson & Johnson Ltd. case where printing, coating, and backing of aluminium foils were considered manufacturing a new product. However, the decision in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. case and the Swastik Packaging case's view were considered to support the argument that printing did not create a new product.

7. The Tribunal concluded that printing on aluminium foil did not result in a new distinct product, aligning with the Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. case and one member's view in the Swastik Packaging case. Hence, no manufacturing activity was involved.

8. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, dismissing the appeals as no manufacture was found in printing aluminium foil, and it was not considered a new product attracting duty liability.

---