9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdings of Clause (v) of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not cover processing of goods on job work basis which got covered by this clause, when the same was substituted by - “production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the clients – demand set aside - ST/457-460/2011 - ST/A/104-107/2012-Cus.(PB) - Dated:- 7-12-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, vide order-in-original dated 31-8-2009 held that the appellant s activity is not taxable under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19)(v) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the same stood during the period of dispute, on Revenue s appeals to C.C.E. (Appeals), the Deputy Commissioner s order was reversed vide order-in-Appeal No. 190-194/ST/Appl/CHD-I/2010 dated 24-12-2010 and service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving the pre-deposit. 3.1 Shri Joy Kumar, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellants, pleaded that during the period of dispute i.e. from 10-9-04 to 15-6-05, the taxable entry in Section 65(19)(v) was production of goods on behalf of clients which does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 , that this entry did not cover production on job work basis but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of these cases, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri B.L. Soni, the learned SDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the C.C.E. (Appeals) in the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The appellants carry out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
