9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able commodity. When the CESTAT has already held that the petitioner's activities involved in the present Writ Petition to be a non manufacturing activity and such a ratio has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present impugned order, passed on the basis that the petitioner's activity is a manufacturing activity, cannot be sustained. Petition allowed. - W.P.No.9286 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2019 - Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh For the Petitioner : Mr.J.Shankar Raman For the Respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran ORDER The petitioner Corporation, among other activities, undertakes the process of cutting and dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Heard Mr.J.Shankar Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal in the case of CCE Madras V. TNEB Workshop reported in 2000 (124) ELT 638 (Tribunal) and CCE V. Superintending Engineer, TNEB reported in 2001 (131) ELT 510 (Tribunal) had resolved the dispute in favour of the petitioner's Corporation as to whether the process undertaken by the petitioner would amount to manufacture or not. As such, the action of the first respondent in not following the decisions of the Tribunal in the petitioner's own case is unjustified and illegal. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angles, MS channels and MS plates, does not amount to manufacture, is sustainable or not, the Commissioner of Central Excise through an order in original dated 06.07.2016 had relied upon the earlier orders of the CESTAT, as well as the Board Circular dated 26.06.2014 and observed that the decisions are binding on him and consequently, held that the processing of structural materials out of MS angles, does not amount to manufacture as no new products were manufactured and therefore, the proposal to recover the sanctioned refund amount under Section 11(A) of the CE Act was invoked and thereby dropped the recovery proceedings alone. 8. Likewise, when the similar issue as to whether the process adopted by the petitioner was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
