9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar Singhvi For The Respondent by :- Pramod Kumar and Amresh Jain ORDER Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member -The facts leading to filing of this appeal are, in brief, as under:- 2. The appellant are engaged in the business of manufacture of thermite mixture and rendering service in relation to thermite welding of rail joints. The thermite mixture, which is used for thermite welding consists of iro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 50,32,293/- was raised against the appellant along with interest and also for imposition of penalty vide show cause notice dated 23.10.2007 for the period 16.06.2005 to 28.02.2007. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 14.02.2008 by which the Commissioner confirmed the above demand to the extent of Rs. 26,09,242/- and dropped the remaining de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure so as to attract service tax demand under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri A. Jain, ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that as a result of the process undertaken by the appellant, the pieces of rail with longer length emerge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess, the rails have to be precisely aligned. In our view, therefore, the activity of the appellant does not result in any deliverable goods to the railway and it cannot be said to be the production or processing of goods not amounting to manufacture. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
[operative portion already pronounced]
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
