TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the manufacture of man-made fabrics and cotton fabrics. They undertook the processing of man-made fabrics and cotton fabrics. For printing, the appellants used nickel cylinders which they purchased from the market. The department alleged that the appellants are manufacturing nickel cylinders and were clearing them without submission of price lists, classification lists, without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without paying duty on them. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty should not be demanded from them and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. 3. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellants submitted that the nickel cylinders in question ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimed that on representation of the Mills Owners' Association, the Government of India issued Notification No. 201/87 on 2-9-1987. It was also argued that Notification No. 39/90-C.E. (N.T.), dated l0-10-1990 under Section 11C, the Government has granted remission of duty retrospectively in respect of above nickel cylinders. After careful consideration of the submissions, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. 5. Dr. P.V. Jois, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the nickel cylinders were not manufactured by them but were procured from outside; that they were only making certain engraving to suit their design requirements; that since nickel screen cylinders were procured by them on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri S.N. Ojha, ld. JDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submitts that the Tribunal in the case of New Great Eastern Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. did not consider the issues which are relevant to the present case inasmuch as the Collector (Appeals) in the case relied upon had relied on the Trade Notice and observed and there was nothing in the Revenue Appeal that the Trade Notice was not applicable. He submitts that thus the present case was clearly distinguishable. 8. Heard the submissions of both sides. For the sake of clarity we reproduce the facts of the case cited and relied upon by the appellants are as under :- "There is a composite mill and they are inter alia engaged in printing of Cotton Fabrics on Rotary Printi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. We note that the appellants purchased perforated Nickel Screen Cylinders from outside. They engraved certain design to use them in Rotary Printing Machine. The admitted position is that these cylinders are not marketable. The admitted position is also that the perforated Nickel Screen Cylinders are procured form the market on payment of duty. Thus, the question arises that in the absence of any evidence showing that the engraved Nickel Screen Cylinders were marketable. We hold that the process undertaken by the appellants is not process of manufacture. It is more so as product before engraving is cylinder and even after engraving designs remains cylinder as is held in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited cited above ....