S.R. FOILS LTD. Vs. CCE, DELHI-1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is posted today for hearing the stay petition filed by M/s. S.R. Foils Ltd. For the reasons recorded below, we stay recovery of the duty of excise confirmed and penalty imposed on them and take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of repacking aluminium foils into retail packs for further sale; that they purchased duty paid jumbo rolls of aluminium foils and cut the same into desired size to facilitate its use for wrapping food products and chapatis; that the aluminium foils in retail pack is being marketed under two names, namely, aluminium home foil and chapati wrap; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 268 -270/2001 -B dated 17.5.2001, in their own case for the earlier period, has held that in so far as aluminium home foil is concerned no manufacture is involved and accordingly no excise duty is liable to be paid; that in respect of chapati wrap the Tribunal held that activity amounts to manufacture and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for correct classification and quantification of demand of duty and penalty. The learned Advocate, therefore, prayed that the present matter may also be disposed of in terms of earlier order dated 17.5.2001.

(2.) SHRI R.D. Negi, learned SDR, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Foil India Laminates Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 1999 (111) ELT 728 (T).

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of both the sides. The appellate Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves for the earlier period involving the same issue has held vide Final Order Nos. 268 -270/2001 -B dated 17.5.2001 that the activity of cutting jumbo rolls of aluminium foil into smaller lengths followed by rewinding on cardboard core and repacking do not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal accordingly held that aluminium home foils were not excisable goods. In respect of chapati wrap it was held by the Tribunal in the said case that a chapati wrap is not the same as aluminium foil. It is a product made out of two different inputs, namely, aluminium foil and paper. The Tribunal also observed that the product is known in the market as chapati wrap and not as aluminium foil and chapati wrap is a commodity of commercial identity distinct from aluminium foil and paper. In respect of chapati wrap the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide classification afresh in accordance with law and natural justice and to requantify demand of duty on the basis of such classification and to decide afresh on confiscability of the seized goods and on penal liability and interest liability under Section 11AC and 11AB respectively. As the earlier Order dated 17.5.2001 is in respect of same product, following the ratio of the said Order we hold that aluminium home foil is not chargeable to duty and in respect of chapati wrap we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh in terms of directions contained in Tribunal's earlier Order Nos. 268 -270/2001 -B dated 17.5.2001.