1996 (6) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o printing and the printed aluminium foils are cleared to the respective customers. The respondents were clearing the printed aluminium foils on payment of excise duty. On 23-11-1982 the respondents sent a letter to the Asstt. Collector taking the stand that printed aluminium foil was not dutiable and thereafter, the respondents would be removing goods without payment of duty. This led to two show cause notices in respect of different periods by the Assistant Collector demanding payment of duty on the ground that printing aluminium foils amounted to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the respondents were liable to pay duty. The respondent contested the notices. The Asstt. Collector con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nother article is not dutiable if both the articles fall under the same tariff sub-item since that view is contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Laminated Packagings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 326 (SC). 5. However, of the three aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal, the earliest, namely, Swastik Packaaging, Bombay - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217, is important for another reason. Two of the three Members did not deal with the aspect of "manufacture" but the Third Member, in a separate order, dealt with this aspect and held that mere printing on the foil does not convert the same into an article of a new character and, therefore, printing does not amount to manufacture for excise purposes. (See para....