TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 29-1-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had taken a view that lacquering and printing of aluminium collapsible extruded tube was not a process of manufacture prior to the amendment to Section 2(f) and Tariff Item N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, who is present for the appellants/Revenue. 3. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, stated that the matter is already covered by the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Deepak Extrusion v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 432 (Kar.). The Karnataka High Court in Para 59 of their judgment had held that extruded plain tubes undergo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said Clause (f) is challenged. The challenge is liable to fall in view of the decision of this Court in Ujagar Prints & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) = 1989 (3) SCC 488]. Yet another contention raised in this appeal relates to the validity of the levy of duty upon these tubes between June 1, 1980 and August 25, 1980. The contention is that the Finance Bill....