https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202054 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the activity of laminating and printing on duty-paid film amounted to the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant's argument that the products were distinct, fit for use as packaging material, and involved printing activity was supported by stay orders from other Benches, indicating a prima facie case against the department's view. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the denial of CENVAT credit was contradictory, as treating the duty paid as a deposit under Section 11D implied recognition of the material as an excisable product, ultimately granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 31 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202054 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the activity of laminating and printing on duty-paid film amounted to the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant's argument that the products were distinct, fit for use as packaging material, and involved printing activity was supported by stay orders from other Benches, indicating a prima facie case against the department's view. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the denial of CENVAT credit was contradictory, as treating the duty paid as a deposit under Section 11D implied recognition of the material as an excisable product, ultimately granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 31 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202054