TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (6) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured printed cartons on job work basis and value of the printed cartons has to be included in determining the SSI eligibility limit. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons, an excisable commodity and availed SSI benefit under Notification 8/2003. In addition, he was doing job work to various agarbathi manufacturers by converting the raw materials supplied by the manufacturers for printing purposes. The appellants contended that mere printing on the raw materials does not amount to manufacture. According to the Revenue, the appellants actually manufactured printed cotton on job work basis also. Therefore, the lower authorities decided that the value of the goods cleared on job work should be included in the SSI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....333] Reliance is also placed on CBEC Circular No. 516/12/2000, dated 1-3-2000 wherein it has been clarified that printing of logo and brand name on the paper would not amount to manufacture. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant had undertaken the process of manufacture of cartons on job work basis, as the same is not at all supported by any evidence on record. In the delivery form, the agarbathi manufacturers indicated the purpose of the job work as "Printing Purpose Only". (e) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by ignoring the statement of Shri Dhananjaya of M/s. Ganga Products and the Managing Partner of the appellant's company that they used to get boxes manufactured from several persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing has been done in the respective years individually. In view of the above, he submits that the duty demand confirmed and the penalty imposed in the impugned order are against the provisions of law and hence liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Jt. CDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The contention of the appellants is that the raw materials had been received from the agarbathi manufacturers and they undertook the activity of printing only which does not amount to manufacture. In support of the contention, they have cited the delivery Form II, prescribed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Karnataka, wherein there is a mention for "Printing P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and M/s. Jaishree Gram Udyog are supplying the raw materials for conversion; that the above parties are engaged in the manufacture of agarbathis and the cartons manufactured are in turn used for the packing of agarbathis; that they only charge labour charge for the conversion and the rate varies depending upon the size; that prior to September 2003, they were not including the landed cost of the raw materials in their invoices, but from September 2003, onwards, they are including the value of the raw materials and labour charges in the invoices raised by them; that they were not aware of the fact earlier that the cost of the raw materials had to be included for the purpose of turnover; that immediately on coming to know of the above fact, ....