2017 (4) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Atul Handa, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The appellant is in the appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing PP Rings for supply of steel pipe manufacturers i.e. M/s. Bhusan Steel Ltd. and Jindal Pipes Ltd. who used the same for protecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....27-11-1987. He also relied on the decision of Prakash Industries v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 30 (Tribunal-LB) and S.T.I. Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 346 (Tribunal). 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. AR and submits that the PP Rings are not the packing material therefore, appellants is not entitled to avail the benefit of the C.B.E. & C. Cir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een used for protecting the ends of pipe having threading during the transportation. It is none other than is only a packing material, therefore, we hold that the PP Rings used by the appellant is a packing material. 9. Now, come to the next issue, the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 27-11-1987 is reproduced hereunder :- "Some doubts have been expressed regarding the dutiablity of packing ma....