2023 (12) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s found that the activity of galvanizing of the items falling under chapter 72 amounts to manufacture was introduced w.e.f. 08.04.2011 through Chapter (V) of the Finance Act, 2011. As during the impugned period, galvanization of the items falling under chapter 72 of the CETA did not amount to manufacture, in that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay duty on galvanizing activity of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he case are that the appellant is engaged in three types of activity:- (A) Acquiring inputs in their account and manufacturing certain structural items/towers and clearing the same on payment of duty. (B) The appellant undertook the activity of job-work of galvanizing the goods provided by the principal manufacturer falling under chapter 73 in terms of Notification No.214/86 dated 25.03. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As the appellant is liable to pay duty on their manufactured goods by the act of galvanizing the same. In these set of facts, a show cause notice dated 21.04.2011 was issued to the appellant to demand duty on the activity of galvanizing. 5. The appellant contested the demand of duty by providing necessary documents and praying that the appellant is not required to pay duty on galvanizing the ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivity of galvanizing the goods falling under chapter 72, and the appellant is paying Service Tax thereon. The appellant is also undertaking the activity of erection, commissioning and installation of towers etc. and paying Service Tax thereon. 7. The case of the revenue is that the appellant is liable to pay duty instead of paying Service Tax for the activity of galvanizing for goods falling un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... items falling under chapter 72 of the CETA did not amount to manufacture, in that circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay duty on galvanizing activity of the goods falling under chapter 72 of the Tariff Act during the impugned period. 12. In view of that, we hold that the demand of excise duty is not sustainable against the appellant. 13. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X