Judgment 1 The brief facts, relevant for disposal of present appeal filed by the appellant-assessee M/s. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Jayco India Pvt. Ltd.) (for brevity the assessee), are that the assessee are engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum/bubble gum and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit, in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of bubble gum, including packing material. The revenue claimed that as the assessee has wrongly availed the Cenvat credit on Boomer-tattoos, therefore, a show cause notice was issued, denying credit, in regard to Boomer-tattoos, on the ground that these are not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product i.e. chewing gum/bubble gum. 2 The explanation put forth by the assessee did not find favour and the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Cenvat credit and confirmed the demand, vide impugned order dated 2-9-2002 (Annexure A5). 3 The appeal filed by the assessee was firstly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 28-3- 2003 (Annexure A9) and thereafter, by the Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 7-4-2006 [2007 (220) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Del.)]. 4 The assessee still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order dated. 7-4-2006 and filed the present appeal. 5 We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and have gone through the record. 6 The main argument of learned counsel for the assessee that the manufacturer can avail the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs including the packing material and as Boomer-tattoos are used in packing material, in respect of bubble gum, therefore, it (assessee) is entitled to Cenvat credit, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. Admittedly, the assessee is availing the Cenvat credit in respect of packing material, in which bubble gums are wrapped, but the revenue has denied the same in respect of Boomer-tattoo. 7 It is not a matter of dispute that chewing gum/bubble gums manufactured by the assessee are directly or primarily packed into the printed aluminum foils without Tattoos. It means, putting a  Boomer-tattoo in the package material of the bubble gum is an additional step in aid used for promotional material and is not termed as a packing material as such, especially when it is depicted on the packing that free tattoo inside. It means, putting a  Boomer-tattoo in the package material of the bubble gum is an additional step in aid used for promotional material and is not termed as a packing material as such, especially when it is depicted on the packing that free tattoo inside. The primary function of putting the  Tattoo in the wrapped bubble gum is to promote the trade and to attract the children, rather than to be used for the purpose of packing Tattoo. 8 Again, it is not a matter of dispute that these printed  Tattoos are not used for initial packing in the real sense, rather they are wrapped. On the bubble gum. Therefore, it cannot possibly be said that the Boomer-tattoo is used as an initial packing material. Meaning thereby, the wrapper of the Tattoo on the bubble gum is not at all required in the form of primary packing. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that there is no direct or indirect use of the Tattoo in or in relation to the manufacture of the product, rather it is separately known as Tattoo in the market, has a separate identity, specific purpose of promotion of the product and for the purpose of advertisement. Hence, it is not a packing material and cannot be considered as inputs within the meaning and definition of input as contemplated under the relevant Rule. 9 Therefore, we are of the considered view that the  Boomer-tattoo is not a primary packing material used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, either directly or indirectly nor can it be considered as primary packing material. The usage of tattoo material is an additional step in aid to promote the trade and involves element of advertisement. As such, it cannot be termed as primary packing material, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for Cenvat credit on the Boomer-tattoo. 10 No other legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee. Therefore, the same is maintained. 11 For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed as such.