THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (J) DEEK PRINTERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, in de novo proceedings vide which he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 18,93,141/ - out of the proposed demand of duty of Rs. 63,88,474/ - and dropped the balance.

(2.) AS per facts on record the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of printed cartons, corrugated boxes, paper labels, advertising material etc. The appellant was also manufacturing ink and using the same captively under exemption Notification No. 67/95. Some of the appellants products were dutiable and some of them were exempted. The demand stands confirmed against them at 8% of the value of the exempted product on the ground that common inputs were being used in the manufacture of the dutiable as also the exempted products. The Commissioner vide his impugned order has accepted the assessees contention that corrugated boxes were not being manufactured by them but was manufactured by M/s. Labh Packaging on job work basis. The paper Board for the said goods was being directly delivered to M/s. Labh Packaging and the final product corrugated boxes were also being cleared directly from their premises to the appellants customers. No Modvat credit was ever availed by the appellant in respect of the above. Accordingly Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 3,33,657/ -.

(3.) THE adjudicating authority also accepted the appellants plea that printed labels were being manufactured by them on their own behalf and also on job work basis. Accordingly he has held that the goods which were cleared under job work will not attract the provisions of Rule 57CC. He has accordingly, only confirmed the demand in respect of the printed labels and advertising material cleared by the appellant on their own behalf.