TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Coating steel pipes not manufacturing for excise</h1> The Tribunal held that the activity of coating steel pipes with cement mortar and M.S. weld mesh did not amount to manufacture for excisability. The ... Manufacture - Demand - Limitation - Suppression Issues:1. Whether the activity of coating steel pipes with cement mortar and M.S. weld mesh amounts to manufacture for excisability.2. Whether demands raised for a larger period are barred by time.3. Applicability of judgments and circulars in determining excisability.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the demands confirming activity carried out on steel pipes as 'guniting' did not amount to manufacture as they were not the manufacturers of the duty paid steel pipes. The Commissioner upheld the demands, imposing penalties. However, the appellant cited precedents like PSL Ltd. v. CCE to argue that the process did not result in new goods. The Tribunal, following Apex Court judgments, held that the process did not constitute manufacture, as affirmed in Acer India Ltd. case. The demands were deemed time-barred under Section 11A of the act due to known facts and prior adjudication in favor of the appellant.2. The Commissioner contended that the demands were not time-barred, citing distinctions from the appellant's references. However, the Tribunal found that the demands for the period specified were indeed time-barred based on established judgments, including the Nizam Sugar Ltd. case. The known facts and earlier adjudication in favor of the appellant further supported the time-bar argument, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.3. The Tribunal considered the facts of the case, emphasizing that the appellants were not the manufacturers of the steel pipes but engaged in a process involving cement mortar and M.S. mesh weld. Citing PSL Ltd. and Acer India Ltd. cases, it was established that such processes did not create new goods and did not amount to manufacture for excisability. The Tribunal also noted the relevance of the cited judgments and the Board Circular in determining the excisability of the process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed based on the application of established legal principles and precedents, with relief granted accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
