9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lower authorities, that the process amounts to manufacture - demand upheld. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - when the raw materials are supplied by principal/buyer they have not paid Central Excise duty for claimed to have paid service tax. In such situation, the appellants had knowledge and applied different reasoning to follow different tax liabilities for the same processes - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Excise Appeal No.50054 of 2014 - A/53521/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-5-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the appellant. Shri M.R. Sharma, Authorized Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/1988 of the Board as well as the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) , the learned AR submitted that the processes undertaken by the appellants amount to manufacture and they are rightly subjected to excise levy. Further, he submitted that the appellants were discharged Central Excise duty on similar items when they have undertaken the said work on their own raw material. Such dual approach is not permissible. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The point for decision is whether the appellants have undertaken processes amounting to manufacture, in respect of iron and steel items received from ABB and returned back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the product cleared by the appellants are parts of structures after assembling them with the use of nuts, bolts and washers. We take note of the ratio indicated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Man Structurals Ltd. (supra). Though the said order was for remand direction, indications were given as to how to determine the duty liability in such situation. The products, in question, as cleared by the appellants are specifically identifiable and classifiable under a tariff heading under Chapter 73. The raw materials are of general nature falling under Chapter 72. As such, we have no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities. 6. The appellants pleaded limitation also. Here we note that the appellants, admittedly, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
