2015 (7) TMI 1002

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate, Hyderabad and both the cases arouse out of the common order dated 29.05.2011 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (in short the Tribunal), in Appeal Nos.E/1091/2000 and E/1092/2000. In both the appeals, filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (in short the Act), raised common questions of law for consideration of this Court. They are 1) Whether CESTAT is correct in determining the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and 2) No subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing into existence any new commodity? 2) The facts are not in dispute. The respondents industrial concern ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4) Both the parties have advanced extensive arguments and the matter was reserved for orders. The simple controversy involved is whether the cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller sizes and printing on them by a job worker would amount to manufacture as defined under the Central Excise Act. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that in large number of cases the Tribunals across the country had decided the slitting of the jumbo rolls into of duty paid cork tipping paper and printing on them does not amount to manufacture. However, the larger Bench of Calcutta Tribunal had taken a contra view. When the larger Bench order of the Calcutta Tribunal was placed before the two Member Bench, the decision was not followed by the Trib....