9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 251 (P. H.), wherein after taking the entire process into consideration, it was held that re-shelling of old worn-out Sugar Mill Roller does not amount to manufacture. Reliance has also been placed by Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant, on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd., Bihar reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 568 (T), wherein the repairing and reconditioning of rollers were held not liable to duty in the absence of any manufacturing process. As such, submits the learned Advocate, that following the ratio of the above decisions, impugned Orders passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions made from both sides. The Additional Commissioner in his impugned Order-in-Original has observed as under :- "I find that the said assessee manufactured and cleared reshelled roller shafts for Sugar Mills out of old, used and unserviceable shelled roller shafts by removing damaged shells by breaving/cutting and then mounting the new casted shells which were manufactured inside the factory premises. Thereafter, so mounted shell were machined, grooved and tested before despatch. The said assessee cleared the so-reshelled shaft rollers to their customers, without payment of Central Excise duty, after charging only cost of casted shell, other job charges and test charges etc. The process of reshelling of roller shafts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the manufacture are not sustainable. 7. We also note that the appellants have a good case on limitation, the show cause notice having been issued after a period of six months from the relevant date. From the preceding paragraph it gets established that the Revenue was not only in the knowledge of activities being undertaken by the appellants, but was also issuing them the show cause notices on the same grounds. No appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the said activities as not amounting to manufacture. In fact, the Revenue accepted the said Order and refunded the amount of duty paid by the appellants. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants were guilty of suppressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
