JUDGMENT
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeals arise out of a common Order-in-Appeal dated 19.9.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The issue originates from the issuance of 4 show cause notices to M/s. Special Prints Ltd. demanding total central excise duty of Rs. 1,62,273 on 1303 Nos. of Designed Nickel Perforated Cylinders and from the issuance of one show cause notice to M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. demanding central excise duty of Rs. 4,50,900.49 on 3240 Nos. of the same item alleged to be manufactured by the appellants in their factories and used captively in the printing of man made fabrics. M/s. Special Prints Ltd. have filed Classification List No. 1/89 and M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. have filed C.L. No. 2/86 classifying the products under Central Excise Tariff Heading 8442.00 and claiming the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 64/86 dated 10.2.86 as amended by Notification No. 276/86 dated 24.4.86. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner denied the exemption claimed and confirmed the show cause notices issued to both the appellants by a common adjudication order dated 22.10.90. The lower Appellate Authority rejected the appeals filed by both the appellants; hence these appeals.
2. We have heard Shri Pochkhanwala, advocate for the appellants and Shri J.M. George, D.R. for the respondent.
3. We note that both the appellants had filed appeals on identical issue before the New Delhi Bench of the CEGAT against Order-in-Appeal dated 14.1.92 of the Collector of Customs & Cen. Excise, Bombay and Order-in-Original dated 16.12.91 of the Addl. Collector of Customs & Cen. Excise, Surat and the appeals were disposed of by New Delhi Bench order No. E/1553-1554/98-B1 reported in 2000(117) ELT 759 holding that the process of making Designed Cylinders out of Blank Nickel Perforated Cylinders does not amount to manufacture and allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The department filed Civil Appeal No. 3729/99 before the Apex Court and the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 26.4.1999.
4. Following the ratio of the above order of the Tribunal as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that the process carried out by both the appellants of affixing design on nickel perforated cylinders does not amount to manufacture so as to attract excise duty, set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allow these appeals with consequential relief, if any due to the appellants. Since the appeals are being allowed on the above ground, we do not go into the question of eligibility of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/86 which issue would arise only if the process adopted by the appellants were held to amount to manufacture.
(Dictated in Court)