9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Being aggrieved by order-in-appeal dated 6-10-2005 holding that there shall not be interest liability on the appellant for confusion of law till Finance Bill, 2005 which defined taxability on the clearances made by the appellant for the period 17-12-2004 to 12-1-2005, Revenue came in appeal. 2. It appears from the facts of the case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a deeming provision shall not operate in absence of specific statement of law that a process amounts to manufacture. In para 25, it was held that in any event prior to 1986 before the term manufacture was amended, the refining process cannot be called as manufacture. 4. In the present case in Finance Bill, 2005 refining was specifically brought into the scope of Chapter 15 inserting the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear by Finance Bill, 2005, Assessees were not in a position to determine their liability. 6. Therefore let the dispute come to an end without levy of interest as has been held by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Our decision above is confined to the interest aspect only when duty element is not disputed. 7 In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
