9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND S.T. CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S. SURYA AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2024 (7) TMI 1312 - SC ORDER] where it was held that 'In the instant case, the process involved is that the gas received by the appellant through the pipeline has some accumulation of moisture and in order to remove the same from the gas, the compressor has an inbuilt system of drying the moisture. The treatment employed by the respondent-herein is oil filtration for the removal of moisture from gas by drying the inbuilt system of compressing gas into the cylinders. The said process, in our view, does not amount to a manufacturing process.' Conclusion - The appellant's process of preparing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing unit of SIEL Chemical Complex, Rajpura. M/s. SIEL Chemical Complex, Rajpura is engaged in the manufacture of hydrogen gas. The appellant receives 99.9% pure hydrogen gas from SIEL through pipeline at a pressure of 1000 to 1200 mmwc. This gas is filled in returnable gas cylinders with identification marking of the appellant and sold to various consumers. Filling process is done with the aid of filter, dehydration and compressor. Earlier the appellant was registered with the excise department as manufacturer of excisable goods. In the year 2006, the appellant came to know that some other persons engaged in the filing and marketing of gas cylinders were not paying excise duty to the department and they were registered with excise dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Apex Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2355 of 2019; upheld the judgment passed by this Tribunal by holding that the process including the activities of filling Hydrogen gas cylinders to render the product marketable did not amount to manufacture. Ld. Counsel further submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court, this appeal deserved to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the judgment of the CESTAT in the appellant's own case decided on 20.03.2018 in Appeal no. E/2363/2011 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
