9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per : MR. AKIL KURESHI, J Department is in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 26.8.2010 raising following question for our consideration : "Whether from the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the provisions of notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 the respondent is eligible for proportionate refund attributable to bare pipes used in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undisputedly the second unit, namely, one producing coated pipes was set up after the cut-off date. The Tribunal also noted that both the units were given different excise registration numbers and were thus treated as independent units. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal while declining benefit of exemption notification in favour of the manufacturing activity carried out in the second unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bare pipes portion, instead of their claim of refund of duty actually paid on ther coated pipes. We find no objection in the above request of the learned advocate. Admittedly, when the appellant's claim of demarcation of two units with a new Central Excise registration stand accepted by the Revenue, the two factories are required to be treated as two different units. As such, the bare pipes m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above manner." Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we find no error in the Tribunal's view. Admittedly, the first unit of the respondent manufacturing bare pipes was set up long before the cut-off date and in fact went into commercial production also before the said date. The orders on record would further suggest that both the units were, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
