2017 (8) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of paper wallets classifiable under Chapter Heading 4823.90 of Central Excise Act, 1985. Intelligence gathered by the DGCEI indicated that the assessee had evaded Central Excise duty by manufacturing and removing excisable goods on job work basis without payment of Central Excise duty even after crossing SSI limit during the year 1996-97 to 1999-2000. Thereafter, the factory of the assessee was searched by the officers on 24.4.2001 and records/documents were seized under Mahazar. Scrutiny of the records revealed that the assessee was manufacturing paper wallets on job work basis for M/s. Kemwell International Ltd. From April 2000 onwards, the assessee has changed the pattern of transact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere recorded and after the completion of the investigation, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee proposing to demand Rs. 17,14,914/-on the printed paper wallet manufactured and removed by them under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest was also demanded and penalty was also proposed. The Additional Commissioner after following due process of law confirmed the duty demand along with penalty and appropriate interest Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that there is no manufacture in mere printing of information and this is settled law and there is no change in the product after the printing is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree Rayalaseems Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd Vs. CCE: 2006 (203) ELT 248 (Tri. -Bang,) • Suvikram Plastex (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2008 (225) ELT 282 (Tri. -Bang.) • India Fabricators Vs. CCE: 2005 (191) ELT 339 (Tri. -Chen.) • Inar Profiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2014 (310) ELT 200 (Tri. -Bang.) • CCE Vs. Bharat Foundry: 2009 (246) ELT 561 (Tri. -Ahmd.) • Moon Chemicals Vs. CCE: 2007 (215) ELT 434 (Tri. -Chen.) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on records as well as the judgments relied upon by the assessee in support of his submissions that the process carried out by him as a job worker does not amount to manufacture, it is pertinent to rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o kemwell which is a 100% EOU. Duty demand does not survive, as supplies to 100% EOUs are fully exempt from duty under various Notifications of the Act. As per Section 2(f) 'Manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product and any process, which is specified in Section/Chapter-Notes of the Schedule to the Tariff Act as amounting to 'Manufacture'. Note 11 of Chapter 48 reads as follows: "11. Except for the goods of Heading No.48.14 or 48.21, paper, paperboard, cellulose waddling and articles thereof, printed with motifs, characters or pictorial representations, which are not merely incidental to the primary use of the goods fall in Chapter 49." Hence the said....