9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant: Shri V. Raghuraman, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: B.S.V. Murthy; Appellant is a manufacturer of springs. They are also engaged in manufacture of semi-finished metallic springs for other parties. There is no dispute that the conversion of raw materials into the semi-finished metallic springs does not amount to manufacture. Treating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmation of demand with interest and penalty on the appellants. 2. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-LB) and upheld by the Honble High Court of Bombay as reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.) to submit that where the manufacture of final products on which job wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification No.8/2005. He submits that the decision of the Larger Bench relied upon by the appellant cannot be considered as relevant in view of the fact that Notifications are different. The very fact that notification No.8/2005 is an exemption notification and is not an incentive scheme and appellant has availed the exemption, 8%/10% of the value as per the provisions of 6(3) of CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No.8/2005 has been availed and cleared without payment of service tax are ultimately used by the principal manufacturer for manufacture of goods which are cleared on payment of appropriate duty. It is not the case of the either side that the finished products have not suffered duty nor there is any such allegation also. The only ground on which the benefit has been denied is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
