https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344097 Printing of laminated and un-laminated poly films was not shown to amount to manufacture, and the goods were treated as falling under Tariff Item 4911 at a nil rate of duty, so the central excise demand on printing could not stand. Lamination of printed poly films was treated as covered as manufacture only from 10.05.2008, but for the period in question the laminated printed poly films still fell under the nil-rated entry, so no duty demand survived. Because the substantive demand failed, the related penalties, confiscation, and appropriation also could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 01 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Dec 2017 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344097 Printing of laminated and un-laminated poly films was not shown to amount to manufacture, and the goods were treated as falling under Tariff Item 4911 at a nil rate of duty, so the central excise demand on printing could not stand. Lamination of printed poly films was treated as covered as manufacture only from 10.05.2008, but for the period in question the laminated printed poly films still fell under the nil-rated entry, so no duty demand survived. Because the substantive demand failed, the related penalties, confiscation, and appropriation also could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344097