2003 (7) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant. Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein are engaged in manufacture of cigarettes. They also make embossed paper backed aluminium foils out of duty paid paper backed aluminium foils falling under chapter sub-heading 7607.60 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o 27/97, dated 4-7-97 confirmed the duty demands holding that the product was a result of manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that no new products emerge as a result of embossing and cutting to shape, applying the ratio of the Tribunal's order in the case of Swastik Packaging v. CCE [1986 (23) E.L.T. 217] upheld by the Apex Court as seen in 1997 (95) E.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent case and merely because an item falls in a tariff entry, manufacture must not be deemed, as held by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries [2003 (153) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.)]. The department has not brought any material on record to establish that a new product, distinct and different from plain paper backed aluminium foils and having different name, ....