9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were not available during the relevant period having been rendered subsequently, the benefit of the same should not be extended to the applicant – held that - The law declared by the Courts is required to be considered as a correct law even for the period prior to such declaration and it has to be held as if the same was the law for all relevant times. We further find that inasmuch as the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that without agitating on the evidences available on record, he would like to submit that even if the Revenue's case is accepted the said activity of enameling of bare wires received by them from their customers does not amount to manufacture in terms of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court and as such no duty was required to be paid by them. He als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jak, ld. SDR submits that the case was made out against the appellants 33 years back and no such plea was ever raised before adjudicating authority. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the appellants were not available during the relevant period having been rendered subsequently, the benefit of the same should not be extended to the applicant. 4. We do not find merit in the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e light of the same. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication by taking into accounts the above plea of non-manufacture, raised by the appellant, who are at liberty to rely upon the said decisions. We are making it clear that we are not giving any decision on the merits of the case as such. The appellants are at liberty to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
