9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulted in the rubber lining tank assessable to duty and hence he upheld the duty demand of Rs. 11,00,553/- as held by the order in original. 2. Shri Saravanan, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the very issue was considered in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Industrial Roller Corporation and Another as reported in 2000 (36) RLT 158 wherein the Tribunal examined the situations arising from three cases, (1) naked tanks/vessels received from manufacturer (2) naked tanks/vessels received from users/consumers (3) old tanks/vessels received from customers, for re-rubber lining. After due consideration of the issue in the light of the tariff and other judgments on this very point, the Tribunal by majo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein they have carried out such activity of rubber lining and cleared the same on payment of duty. The dispute presently is restricted to only with regard to the tanks received by them on job work basis for carrying out the simple activity of rubber lining which the Collector has accepted as not a process of manufacture and has distinguished the judgment. It is his contention that the citations are not distinguishable and the Collector ought to have followed the same. 3. Shri S. Kannan, learned DR reiterates the departmental view and pleads for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that such activity would bring into existence different goods which should be referred to as rubber lined tanks and there is certainly difference in its functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and there is nothing left to answer or refer to larger bench. The Apex Court in the case of Lathia Industrial Supplier Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in (supra) have examined the issue in the context of old tank as well as new tank and concluded that such activity only increases the life of the tank and does not amount to a process of manufacture. Further, there is no separate chapter note or section note to state that such an activity would amount to manufacture. In the absence of any legislative intent to express such an activity as activity of manufacture for the purpose of considering the resultant product as new product, the Tribunal cannot on its own hold that such an activity would bring into existence a new goods. This aspect having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
