9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty and penalty against the respondents which was initially confirmed by the adjudicating authority through order-in-original. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PVC compoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after following the due procedure. The plea taken up by the Revenue is that the reprocessing undertaken on these goods amounted to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32 of the CETA and as such, they are liable to pay duty again. But in our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not rightly accepted this plea. There is no tangible evidence to substantiate this plea of the Revenue. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back under Rule 173H amounted to manufacture or was akin to manufacture for invoking Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32. Therefore, the revenue could not legally second time demand duty in respect of those very goods on which duty was paid by the respondents at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly set aside the duty demand and penalty against them. We do not find any illegality i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
