Per V.K. Asthana :

These two appeals are against two orders-in-appeal but since they deal with common subject, therefore, they are being considered together by this common order.

2. The short point for consideration is whether slitting, cutting of Jumbo rolls of aluminium foils to obtain smaller size foils of 0.3m width and 9m length, and thereafter winding these on a suitable roll and packing the same as 'house foil' amounts to manufacture or not?

3. Heard Shri K.K. Anand, ld. advocate for appellants and Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR.

4. Ld. advocate submits that the aforementioned process amounts to manufacture for the following reasons:

A. The process is not confined to mere slitting or cutting of jumbo rolls of aluminium foils. Instead, the foils are cut to shape, that is as per the desired width and length and are then rewound and packed. Thus the process is involving the activities which are more than mere slitting and cutting of Jumbo rolls.

B. The Jumbo rolls of aluminium foils are obtained from market on payment of duty under sub heading 7607.10 as plain rolls, and since then they are cut to shape i.e. of width of approximately 0.3m and length of 9m, therefore, the product so emerging is clearly attracted by the description of sub heading 7607.30 which reads as "Perforated or cut-to-shape". He submits that if this process which results in a cut-to-shape product is not held to be falling under this sub heading, then the sub heading itself becomes otiose.

C. Ld. advocate further submits that product which emerges out of this process has a distinct and new identity as known to the market and the buyers, namely, 'house foils'. This 'house foils' is used both by individual families as well as by Hotels and Restaurants for the limited purpose of either packing cooked food or used to assist in cooking of food, particularly in baking. Ld. advocate therefore submits that it is not in dispute that a clear market exists for this product. He therefore, submits that if the buyer goes to purchase such a 'house foil', he shall certainly not accept the jumbo rolls instead.

D. Ld. advocate cites the decision in the case of Ramsay India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Vs. CCE New Delhi as in 1985 (19) ELT 193 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that teleprinter tapes/rolls made by cutting jumbo rolls of printing and writing paper amounts to manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Act. He also cites the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd., 1992 (62) ELT 430 (Tribunal), wherein a similar activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of Video Magnetic Tapes into pancakes was held to amount to manufacture. He also cites the case of Electronics Mechanicals Industries Vs. CCE as in 1995 (6) RLT 823 (CEGAT) = 1995 (76) ELT 309 (Tri.) wherein it was held that slitting of jumbo rolls of audio tapes into tapes of narrower width not exceeding 6.5 mm amounts to manufacture because a new marketable product has come into existence.

5. Ld. JDR on the other hand submits that there are a plethora of case law which have held that mere cutting and slitting of paper or graphic films would not amount to manufacture. He submits that the process of cutting and slitting is obviously to make smaller dimensions in terms of width as well as length. Therefore, this decision clearly apply to the facts of the present case. He cites the decision in the case of Computer Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI as in 1991 (52) ELT 491 Madras wherein it was held that cutting of jumbo rolls of graphite art film into sheets of various sizes, which are thereafter directly sold in the market, does not amount to manufacture. He also cites the case of CC Vs. Hindustan Photo Films, 1991 (52) ELT 301 and CCE Vs. Reelco Paper Products as in 1990 (40) ELT 435 (Tri.) which considered the cutting to shape of paper rolls. Ld. DR submits that the process undertaken in this case is not disputed but what is significant is that only the style has been changed. He further submits that end use is not relevant to the issue, as one