9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31-8-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Belapur. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 78,61,548/- together with interest and imposed equivalent penalty of Rs. 78,61,548/-. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the Order dated 30-6-2005 was passed by the Commissioner confirming the proposals made in the said show cause notice. On appeal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 27-10-2005, held that the issue of reversal of credit when the processes are subsequently held to be not amounting to manufacture is no longer res integra and has been settled by various decisions of Tribunal. Reference was made to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, in the present impugned order has observed that the earlier order dated 30-6-05 held that the processes undertaken by the appellants as not amounting to manufacture. The order dated 30-6-05 has been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 27-10-05. By allowing the appeal, the Tribunal has held that the processes of cutting and slitting amounted to manufacture. If the appellants had any dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounted to manufacture. 7. We find that shifting stands are being adopted both by the Revenue and the appellants in the matter. When the Revenue holds that the said processes do not amount to manufacture, the appellants vehemently argue that the processes amount to manufacture. However, when the Revenue takes the stand that the processes amount to manufacture, the appellants argue that these do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter to him for de novo decision. We, however, make it clear that the Tribunal, in its order dated 27-10-2005, did not decide whether the activity undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture or not. It is obvious on plain reading of the said order that no findings on this issue have been recorded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in the court on 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
