Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Shree Nijrang Poly Pack Inds.

1. these three appeals arise out of the same common order and are therefore being disposed of in this common order.2. the assessees in this case were engaged in the manufacture of polythene bags. the name of the user buyer was printed upon these bags.the assessees had claimed printing ink as an eligible input. the assistant collector accepted this contention of the assessee. the department then approached the collector (appeals) who upheld the belief of the lower authority that printing ink was an input. against this order of the collector, the revenue has filed this appeal.3. i have [heard] shri k.m. patwari for the revenue and shri k.m.mondal for the assessees.4. in the appeal memorandum, reliance continued to be placed on two judgments of the tribunal namely parle products 1992 (57) e.l.t. 152 and petro chemicals 1991 (52) e.l.t. 592, in negating the ratio of the judgment in the case of multilayer composites pvt. ltd. 1993 (63) e.l.t. 565 (tribunal). i have examined the three judgments. these judgments were also scrutinized by the collector in the lower order. in the multilayer composites judgment, the tribunal had taken into account the judgments relied upon by the revenue and had distinguished them. in the multilayer composites judgment, printing ink was held to be an eligible input. shri mondal also refers to the single member judgment in the case of brooke bond lipton india ltd. 1996 (84) e.l.t. 293 in which in exactly identical circumstances, the tribunal held that printing ink was an input for printing brand name and manufacturers name on paper bags.5. in view of these circumstances and in view of the fact that the appellant collector has not placed any case law in his favour in the appeal memorandum, i upheld the impugned order and dismiss these appeals from the revenue.