TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them. The Original authority held that there was manufacture in the process of slitting, deburring, heat treatment, painting and waxing of cold rolled steel strips to obtain box strappings. The Assistant Commissioner demanded an amount of Rs. 1,22,62,877.21 after allowing Modvat credit due to them. The appellants were aggrieved over the order of the Original Authority. Hence they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the issues involved set aside the order of the Original Authority and allowed the appeal of the Respondents. The Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds :- (i) The CESTAT, New Delhi vide its Final Order No. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation and availability of Cenvat credit, the Commissioner (Appeal) is estopped from dealing with the matters relating to classification and manufacture of the impugned goods. The said CESTAT vide its Final Order No. 493/2005 EX-B dated 27-6-2005 [2005 (188) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal)} held that the process under taken by the assessee for making Steel strips known as "Box Strappings" from cold rolled steel strips are not mere processes of slitting or cutting the strips or simply painting them. The processes, which are disclosed, also include Heat treatment. When all the processes are cumulatively taken into consideration and such multiple processes bring about a distinct product, they would amount to manufacture for the purpose of the Excise Tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading 7326.90. The de novo order of the Original Authority classified the goods under heading 7212.30 which is beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the decisions in the case of ONGC v. CCE reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1182 wherein it was held that the demand is beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice. Since the corrigendum has changed the classification, the same has to be treated as a fresh Show Cause Notice. The period of limitation has to be computed as per the date of corrigendum. In that view of the matter, the demand would be time barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Jyothi Laboratories v. CCE [1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|