9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have been carried out. Therefore, there is no new manufacturing process involved. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2334/2011-DB, E/2343/2011-DB - Final Order No. A/ 30202-30203 / 2018 - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Mr Devashish, A.R. for the Appellant Mr. M.V. Sridhar, Adv for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ] These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against orders-in-appeal No. 36 37/2010 dated 17/03/2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issues that falls for consideration in these appeals are as below: i) Whether demand of excise duty on the goods processed/manufactured by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bbed strips result in process of manufacture and that the final products necessitate being classified under Chapter Heading 73.08. On similar facts, the Tribunal in the matter of CCE, Hyderabad Vs K.Ramachandra Rao Final Order No.712/08 dated 19.06.2008 referred to the judgment in Mahindra Mahindra decision of Larger Bench 2005(190) ELT 301 (Tri-LB) held such processes do not amount to manufacture. The relevant part of the decision is extracted below: 3..... Further the learned advocate stated that even after the decision of the Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad, Chandigarh, Kanpur and Chennai, there is no change in the position. He invited our attention to the relevant paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, plates, angles etc. remain the same even after the process have been carried out. Therefore, there is no new manufacturing process involved. In our view, the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals) is legal and proper. There is no merit in the Revenues appeals and the same are rejected. We do not find any reason to take a different view from the findings already recorded as in the above case. Respectively following the ratio thereof, the impugned order is upheld and this Revenue appeal is rejected. 6. The above judgment is applicable to the case in hand, the issue and facts being similar. We further note that the demand of duty by department relates to period from march 2004 to June 2004, whereas, the Chapter Note 5 in Chap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
