2017 (6) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Essar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the activity of printing of laminated and un-laminated poly rolls on job work basis. Further, they have also started printing of laminated and un-laminated poly rolls on their own raw material and its sale from January, 2009. They were also engaged in printing of religious pictures and calendars. It appeared to revenue that printing of laminated and un-laminated poly rolls amounted to manufacture and appellant did not get themselves register with Central Excise and did not pay Central Excise duty. Therefore, appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 30th August, 2011, wherein the appellants were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture, learned Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty on M/s Essar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and imposed penalty of Rs. Ten lakh on Shri Atul Goel under Rule 26 of Central Excise Act, 2002. The original authority also confiscated the material and finished goods valued at Rs. 78,12,165/- and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs. Further, Rs. 40 lakh were appropriated. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant, who has submitted that in the entire show cause notice, there is no whisper by revenue that the activity carried out by the appellant amounts to manufacture. There is no attempt by revenue to decide classification o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9.01 attract nil rate of duty. Further, the said product has been reclassified under heading 49.11 under 8 digits classification and classification of 8 digits also attracts nil rate of duty. 4. Heard the learned D.R. who has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the said show cause notice nowhere established that printing amounted to manufacture. We find that the lamination has been covered by definition of manufacture wef. (since) 10.05.2008. The period covered by the present show cause notice is from 2006-07 to 2010-11. We hold that wherever the appellant is undertaking only printing of polyfilms that activity is not attracting Central Excise duty. We find that the appellant is also lami....