9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, when the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture then the goods are to be classified correctly as per Third Schedule. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has correctly re-classified the goods. The appellants are themselves are manufacturers and their goods are to be valued in terms of Section 4A of the Act - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/31-33/2009 & E/1232/2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60255-60258/2019 - Dated:- 22-2-2019 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri P.K. Ram, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri H. Singh, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following decisions:- (a) Sarvesh Refractories Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE-2007 (218) ELT 488 (SC) (b) Tata Oil Mills Co.Ltd.vs.CCE-1997 (91) ELT 144 (Tri.) (c) CCE vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.-2000 (121) ELT 437 (Tri.) (d) CCE vs. Pawan Ispat Udyog-2007 (213) ELT 134 (Tri.). 4. He further submits that it is settled law that the classification of a product has to be done by the jurisdictional officer in charge of the manufacturing unit. The officer in charge of recipient unit cannot be allowed to sit in judgment over the classification already determined by the officer in charge of the manufacturing unit. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shankarrao Mohite SSG Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-2014 (314 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellants submits that the classification of the product cannot be changed at the recipient end, in fact, recipient itself is manufacturer in terms of Section 2(f) (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has no force. In that circumstance, the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel has no relevance to the facts of this case. 10. As we already held that the appellants are themselves are manufacturers and their goods are to be valued in terms of Section 4A of the Act, therefore, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. 11. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. (operative part of order was pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
