9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... araman, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ashok Agarwal, Sr. Advocate and Smt. Veena Jadhav, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Shobha L. Chary, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - By Stay Order Nos. 643 - 645/2004, dated 24-6-2004, the appellants had been partially granted waiver of pre-deposit and had been directed to pre-deposit Rs. 1.30 crores within four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.) wherein it had been held that even if a process does not amount to a process of manufacture, yet the value is to be calculated by adding the cost of galvanisation and it should form a part of the assessment. He points out that the matter was referred by the Board to the Law Ministry for clarification on the basis of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department till it is withdrawn'. He points out that this point was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the appellants argued the matter in the stay application and as a fresh point has been raised, the Stay Order is required to be recalled and they should be given full waiver of pre-deposit in view of strong prima facie case being in favour of the appellants. 4. The learned JCD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eful consideration, we notice that the Stay Order was passed on the basis of the Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. ratio rendered by the Apex Court. The appellants had not brought to the notice of the Bench the Board's Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX 4, dated 3-1-2001 wherein the Board has accepted the Law Ministry's advise that the judgment of the Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. does not enable the Department to charge duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
