9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning and repairing of Spinnerettes and no manufacturing activity is involved. He pleaded that due to difference of opinion, the revenue has held it to be manufacture and being not satisfied from the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and the Collector (Appeals) did not permit the appellant to agitate this point on the ground that it was a fresh plea and was not taken before the Asstt. Collector. He stated that in the grounds of appeal, there is also claim of benefit of Notification No. 131/81-CE dated 22nd June, 1981 and he does not press the same at this stage and pleaded that the necessary permission for the withdrawal of the same may be granted. On merits, Shri Ganesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent, stated that neither the Assistant Collector nor the Collector (Appeals) has discussed the process of repairing as alleged by the appellant or manufacturing as propounded by the revenue and in the fitness of the things, the matter may be remanded to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR stated that for raising the plea of non-manufacturing activity before the Collector (Appeals) for the first time and now agitated before the Tribunal in view of the judgments cited by the learned advocate, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench. 3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant had taken a fresh plea before the Collector (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhra Pradesh High Court was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Controller of Estate Duty v. Bipinchandra N. Patel and Others reported in (1990) 186 ITR 29. 4. In view of the above position, we hold that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was not justified in refusing the appellant to raise the fresh plea as the first appellate forum before him. We admit the fresh plea of the appellant at the second appellate stage. 5. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, the learned advocate for the appellant has cited the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 676 (Bombay) and has urged before us that his case is covered by the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
