Court quashes orders based on legal precedents, dropping show-cause notices.

The court allowed W.P.No.30169 of 2015, quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2015. Consequently, the demand challenged in W.P.No.30170 of 2015 dated 24.06.2015 was also quashed. The court found that the impugned order should be interfered with based on previous decisions by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, as well as the respondent Department dropping multiple show-cause notices issued to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original and demand issued by the respondent regarding treatment of Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes as excisable goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Rubber products, received a show-cause notice questioning whether Rubber lined Steel Tanks/Pipes should be treated as excisable goods. The petitioner argued no manufacture was involved, citing relevant legal precedents. However, the Adjudicating Officer concluded that a new product emerged, confirming the proposal in the show-cause notice.

In a previous case involving the petitioner, the Tribunal had held that the same process did not amount to manufacturing, a decision that became final. Subsequently, the CESTAT also ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that there was no manufacture involved based on previous decisions by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The respondent Department had previously dropped more than 20 show-cause notices issued to the petitioner. Considering these facts, the court found that the impugned order should be interfered with.

Consequently, the court allowed W.P.No.30169 of 2015, quashing the impugned order dated 17.08.2015. As a result, the demand challenged in W.P.No.30170 of 2015 dated 24.06.2015 was also quashed.

---