9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore confirming duty demand of Rs. 32,900/- proposed in the show cause notice under Rule 9(2) of the CE Rules, read with Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944, besides confiscating the seized goods, however releasing the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, besides penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. This matter had been considered by the Tribunal by Final Order N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE as reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 83 (T). In the application for rectification of mistake, it was pointed out that these two Larger Bench judgments had not been taken note of by the Tribunal and therefore, there was mistake apparent on record. On consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal accepted the plea and recalled the final order noted above by Miscellaneous Order No. 1073/99, dated 22-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mands were confirmed. The learned Counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the 5-Member Larger Bench in the case of Adreena Industries (supra) and another Larger Bench of 3-Members in the case of National Dyers (supra). In both these judgments the Tribunal analysed Notification and held that the process of squeezing water was not a process of manufacture and therefore, the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be a process of manufacture to dis-entitle the benefit of the Notification. This question was addressed by the Larger Bench in the case of Adreena Industries (supra) and the Tribunal clearly held that the process of hydro-extraction or drying by use of power is not a process of manufacture and the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied. The issue was considered again by the Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
