9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dated 21-2-2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as under :- The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tor Steel and were paying duty under the provisions of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 during the relevant period. They have also manufactured the goods on behalf of M/s. Tulsyan Udyog (a registered dealer) and M/s. Vishakapatnam Steel Plant by undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, respondent preferred an appeal to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the oral written submissions and grounds of the appeal, set aside the OIO and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. Revenue is aggrieved by the said order and hence they are in appeal. 3. The ld. JDR wound contend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te notice. Since this appeal is of 2006, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR and perused the records. We find that the issue in this case is regarding the excisability of the goods manufactured by the respondent on job work basis for Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. It is undisputed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis, when the respondents have been discharging the duty liability on the production based on the capacity. 6. We also, find that an identical issue came up before the Hon ble High Court of P H in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v Dhiman Iron and Steel Inds [2007 (219) E.L.T. 67 (P H)]. We reproduce their lordships findings. 6. A reference to the above provisions shows that a special scheme f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
