2017 (10) TMI 1412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iability of central excise duty - Held that:- The process undertaken by the appellant are not in dispute. There is no special process facility with the appellant. Improvement in the content of “Fe” due to the processes undertaken by the appellant by itself will not make the resultant product as iron ore concentrate - It is clear that process undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore into concentrate will amount to manufacture liable to Central Excise duty. The lower authorities confirmed the duty liability. Penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed on the appellant. 3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the processes undertaken by them are mentioned in the impugned order. However, the lower authorities erred in concluding that the process resul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m. The Board has vide their Circular dated 17-2-2012 on similar set of facts clarified the matter. However, quoting the Board Circular, the impugned order with reference to HSN note, arrived at a different conclusion. We note that the process undertaken by the appellant are not in dispute. There is no special process facility with the appellant. Improvement in the content of "Fe" due to the proces .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X