9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that the activity carried out by Vijlal Vithaldas Sons (whom we refer to for convenience as the assessee) slit steel to narrow the sheets in coil form received by it, amounts to manufacture. The notice dated 20-1-2000 issued to the applicant demanded duty on clearance between April, 1995 and November, 1999 and invoked the extended period contained in sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act, alleging suppression of the fact of the activity of the appellant. 2. On the merits of the issue, common counsel for the applicant relies upon the stay order of the Tribunal in application E/Stay-51/01 [in Appeal E/66/01 in Balmer Lawrie Co. v. CCE - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 645 (Tribunal)]. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irely free from doubt. The Supreme Court judgment in Lal Woolen Silk Mills P. Ltd. was brought to our notice when we passed the former order. It appears to divergent view expressed by the Supreme Court in Moti Laminates and Lal Woolen and Silk Mills. The earlier three member judgment appears to us to say that the mere fact of the resultant product being classifiable under different tariff headings does not result in the process being one of manufacture; the Court specifically said that it was open to the assessee to prove that the process was not manufacture or the goods were not marketable. We have also considered the Tribunal s decision in CCE v. Bamcee - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 126. That decision does not appear to us to have come to a final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the signature of officials claiming to be on the photocopies. He thereupon feebly reiterates the Commissioner's view. He also contends that the applicant did not specifically intimate to the department that the decoiling resulted in the decoiled product falling under a different sub-heading, but is not able to explain why, when the fact of decoiling was intimated to the departmental representative, they did nothing to interfere. On these facts, we do not think that any deposit of duty is required to be made by the applicant. Considering the amount of duty involved, we accept the prayer made by the applicant for out of turn hearing. This appeal and appeal E/66/01 [2002 (139) E.L.T. 645 (Tribunal)] of Balmer Lawrie to be listed for hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
