9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urning into sizes as per the requirements of the customers for which they received job charges. The appellants, subsequently, filed a refund claim on the ground that the process of turning of bars and tubes undertaken by them was not a process of manufacture and no duty can be levied thereon under Item 68 CET. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, in his order dated 22-5-1980, accepted the contentions of the appellants. He held that the process of turning of tubes and bars did not bring into existence a new commodity and was not leviable to central excise duty under Tariff Item 68 because the same are already covered under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. He, therefore, ordered that the refund claim be granted. This orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case law as reported in 1988 (18) ECR 459 in the case of SAIL v. Collector of Central Excise and in the case of SAE India v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (17) ECR 511. The Ld. Counsel, further, contended that the Assistant Collector, having taken into consideration of the relevant factor, had bonafidely adjudicated the case on a question of fact. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel that the review power should not be exercised unless it is patently incorrect, illegal or improper whereas in the present case, there is nothing patently wrong in the Assistant Collector s order. 3. Smt. Shanti Sundaram, Ld. SDR, contended that turning, sizing and polishing undertaken by the appellants on the tubes and bars amounted to process bringing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that pipe fittings made out of pipes and tubes, continue to be pipes and tubes and hence not a different article for excise classification. In that case, the appellants, therein, purchased steel pipes on payment of excise duty and cut the pipes and tubes into different sizes giving them shape and turn them into pipe fittings and the question was whether the pipe fittings so produced also fall under Item 26AA or whether they should be classified under Tariff Item 68. The findings of the Supreme Court, as above, that the goods will continue even after those processes to fall under Item 26AA only is a finding that will also go to support the appellants herein. The Department has also in this case not brought out as to how the goods are know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
