2010 (6) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. The appellants challenge the order dated 29-11-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh. By the impugned order, the appeal which was filed by the appellants before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd to the tune of Rs. 5,96,529/- while holding that the appellants were availing Cenvat credit and was paying duty @ 8% in terms of Rule 57AD(2)(b), though the clearance of the goods was governed by Rule 57-AB(ic) of the Central Excise Rules. Being dissatisfied, the appellants carried the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein while rejecting the application for stay, the appellants were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt to 'manufacture' within the meaning of the said expression under the Central Excise Act. Had the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the said aspect, there would have been no occasion for the appellate authority to insist for deposit of the amount demanded under the order passed by the original authority. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that the original authority on adjudication of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of wires of thinner gauge from the rods of higher gauge, the authorities cannot ignore the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Technoweld Industries. Certainly, therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants, before passing the impugned order it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to take into consideration the effect of the said decision on the facts of....