9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t : Shri Rakesh Goyal, Addl. Comm (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein activity undertaken by them was held by the Adjudicating Authority as manufacturing activity as per Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Chapter note 9 of the Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, demand of duty along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 4. To decide the issue, we have to examine the definition of manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is reproduced hereunder: "2( f) "manufacture" includes any process,- (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account;" 5. The activity undertaken by the applicant is that they are purchasing 98% concentrated sulphuric acid, and as per the requirement of the customers they diluted it with demineralised water, to attain desired concentration. The product that emerged was diluted sulphuric acid (28-50%), which was marketable and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown in the invoice as the sale price of the finished goods, therefore same may be treated as cum-duty price. In these terms, we hold that the appellants are liable to pay differential duty along with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules. 6. We further find that as the issue involved is interpretation whether they are involved in manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
