2010 (5) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rores being the amounts of CENVAT credit taken on inputs. The appellant, during the material period, was engaged in the activity of laminating plastic films procured in the form of rolls and printing on the laminated films. The products of this activity formed packing materials for the buyers. Some of these products were used by the buyers as wrappers for their products, and the rest would be used for making pouches for other products. In either case, the appellant paid duty on the laminated/printed film and, for such payment of duty, they utilised the CENVA credit taken on the film (input). The department did not recognise the above activity as amounting to manufacture and therefore, sought to recover the CENVAT credit taken on the input-f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss amounted to manufacture. It is submitted that the product in question in the present case is distinct and different from the film on which the activity of lamination and printing was undertaken and also it was fit for use as a packaging material for food items. It is also pointed out that, in Metlex case, there was no printing activity involved unlike in the instant case. The learned counsel has also referred to the view taken by the Commissioner with regard to the payment of duty on the laminated/printed material. The learned Commissioner is said to have treated such duty as a (deposit) under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. It is pointed out that, as Section 11D is applicable only to (excisable goods) the above view taken by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore, the appellant can legitimately claim support from the stay order passed by this Tribunal in Metlon India's case and subsequent stay orders passed by this Tribunal by following Metlon India (supra). Yet another factor which needs to be considered is that the CENVAT credit which is sought to be denied to the assessee is lower than the amount of duty paid by them on the commodity which the department would not recognise as excisable goods. It further appears that the duty paid on the said commodity would be available as CENVAT credit to the appellant's customers. Moreover, the duty paid by the appellant on the laminated/printed material is said to be a deposit under Section 11D, as per the impugned order. For the applicability of Sect....