2013 (10) TMI 1252

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions, we deem it appropriate and proper to examine the contentions and issues raised by the appellant in the appeal. 2. The respondent herein is a manufacturer of laminated/metalized printed packaging material. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the respondents were not engaged in manufacture and therefore could not have passed Cenvat credit on inputs to the purchasers of the printed laminated/metalized material. 4. The appellant, inter alia, for the said reason raised demand of Rs. 67,96,891/- with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.3,40,000/-for the period July 2007 to February 2008. 5. The aforesaid view/adjudication was purportedly based and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ention that there was no manufacture. If the Department still wanted to contend that manufacture had been undertaken, the Department had to prove it by cogent evidence. The Tribunal was clearly in error in seeking to cast the burden on the Appellants to show that there was no process of manufacture" 6. The Tribunal distinguishing and elucidating upon the aforesaid decision observed as under:- "19. In para 15 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that mere lamination or metallization of a film does not bring about a new distinct product as such said process cannot be termed as manufacture. In para 16 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has referred to the plea of the department urging for remand of the case back for decision w....