TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Director. In respect of the second show cause notice, the adjudicating officer confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3.85 crores. Interest was awarded under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty in the like amount was imposed on the company, besides a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs on the Managing Director. The assessee filed an appeal together with a stay application before the Tribunal. On 3 December 2013, two Members of the Tribunal differed on the quantum of pre-deposit. Whereas, one Member, taking note of the fact that the assessee had already deposited an amount of Rs. 40 lacs, accepted the statement of the assessee that a further amount of Rs. 20 lacs would be deposited within eight weeks, which was regarded as a fair offer, the second Member, on the other hand, was of the view that in addition to the amount of Rs. 40 lacs, which was already deposited, a further amount of Rs. 1 crore should be ordered to be pre-deposited as a condition for the grant of stay. The difference of opinion was referred to a third Member, who has held that the ends of justice would be met by directing the assessee to make a pre-deposit of a total amount of Rs. 20 lacs in addition to the amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....printed poly films amount to manufacture, has to be considered in the light of different judgments on the issue. Moreover, even if the printing amounts to manufacture, the final product which emerges would be printing and hence, classifiable under Chapter 49 of the Central Excise Tariff thereby attracting a nil rate of duty. The Member (Judicial) was also of the view that the extended period of limitation, prima facie, would not be available to the Revenue. Taking into account the statement which was made on behalf of the assessee that an amount of Rs. 20 lacs would be deposited in addition to the deposit of Rs. 40 lacs, which had been made earlier, that statement was held to meet the ends of justice. On the other hand, the Member (Technical) noted that the assessee had not adduced any evidence or proof regarding movement of inputs from its alleged clients to the unit. According to the second Member, goods which were manufactured on a job work basis were exempted from the payment of central excise duty if they are used in the manufacture of goods on which duty of excise is leviable or such goods are cleared from the factory of the supplier of raw material on payment of duty. Moreo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see had undertaken manufacturing activity without the authority of law and had cleared the goods clandestinely, as it was admitted in the statement of the Managing Director that no central excise registration had been obtained, and it was noted that the assessee had wrongly shown the activity as job work when no document to that effect had been produced. On these findings, the second Member directed a pre-deposit of a further amount of Rs. 1 crore, in addition to Rs. 40 lacs which had already been deposited during investigation. The third Member, before whom the difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and the Member (Technical) came up for resolution, relied upon a decision of the Tribunal taking the view that the activity of printing and plastic coating does not amount to manufacture. The third Member was of the view that this was an issue which had to be considered at the final hearing and since there were contrary decisions of the Tribunal, an order for a further deposit of Rs. 20 lacs, in addition to Rs. 40 lacs already deposited, would meet the ends of justice. In holding thus, the third Member has agreed with the final order passed by the Member (Judicial). Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co.-[1988 (37) E.L.T. 480]. We are, therefore, of the opinion that by process of lamination of kraft paper with polythylene different goods come into being. Laminated kraft paper is distinct, separate and different goods known in the market as such from the kraft paper." In a subsequent decision in Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., New Delhi3 the Supreme Court dealt with a case where the assessee purchased duty paid film which was laminated or metallised. While dealing with the case, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "15. In this case the Appellants purchase duty paid film. They merely laminate or metallise it. The product is a film to start with and remains a film after process of lamination or metallisation. Thus there is no new distinct product which has come into existence and it would have to be concluded that there is no manufacture." In the present case, the assessee carries on the business of printing and lamination. As the Member (Technical), who differed with the Member (Judicial), noted, the activity of the assessee is not either printing or lamination alone but an activity which....