NU TECH PACKAGING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three appeals, arising out of a common Order -in -Original No. 8/2001, the issues involved are whether the process undertaken by M/s. Nu Tech Packaging amounts to manufacture, classification and valuation of the impugned product and whether the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invocable. Revenue has also filed one Appeal against non -imposition of penalty and interest under Section 11AC and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act respectively and against non -imposition of Penalty and interest under Rule 57 -1(4) and (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) SHRI M.P. Singh, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Nu Tech Packaging (NTP in short) manufacturer of boxes/cartons of Duplex Paper Board and varnished printed paper sheets; that on 29 -1 -97 they had sent sheets of laminated Duplex Paper Board for screen printing to a job worker in a three -wheeler which was intercepted and seized by the Central Excise officers on the ground that proper procedure as prescribed under Rule 57F(4) and (6) of the Central Excise Rules was not followed; that the officers also seized carton/ boxes valued at Rs. 1,20,681/ - and varnished paper valued at Rs. 2,59,065.50 which had not been accounted in the statutory records; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has ordered as under :

(3.) THE learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants receive orders for printed laminated/varnished paper sheets; that the lamination/varnishing is undertaken either on printed or unprinted paper sheets; that in case lamination/varnishing is required on printed sheets, the sheets are printed and thereafter laminated/varnished by them; that in such cases, the nature and use of the goods namely, printed sheets, does not change after its lamination/varnishing; that thus the process of lamination/varnishing does not bring into existence a new commodity with different name, character or use and as such, the process of lamination/varnishing does not amount to manufacture as the process provides only durability and beauty. He relied upon the decision in Union of India v. J.G. Glass Ltd. - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). He contended that identity, name and use of the laminated printed sheet are not changed; that mostly printing is done first and then lamination is undertaken by them. He also mentioned that unprinted laminated sheets are not marketable; that such laminated sheets are produced for the purpose of screen printing and are not in the nature of final product; that there is no evidence even to suggest that such laminated sheets are the final products ready to be sold to buyers as laminated paper sheets; that laminated sheets are in the nature of semi -finished intermediate product and hence non -marketable. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions :