1999 (11) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant. Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order held that "The adjudicating officer has correctly rejected their claim for refund as the appellants are obviously not entitled of such a refund. The impugned order, is therefore upheld and the appeal is rejected". 2. The facts of the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... galvanisation. Such removal has been referred to by the appellants as 'deemed removal' of pipes and tubes in terms of explanation to Rules 9 and 49. It was contended by them that since M.S. Pipes and Tubes were exempt from payment of duty prior to 27-2-1994, M.S. Pipes and Tubes contained in the stocks of galvanised pipes as on 27-2-1994 would be exempt from payment of duty as "deemed removal" ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e were exempt prior to 1-3-1994. He submits that these pipes were removed for galvanising and were galvanised on or before 27-2-1994. He submits that during that period the goods were exempt and that in terms of Rules 9 and 49 deemed removals were there. He also submits that the process of galvanisation is not a process of manufacture and since the galvanisation is not the process of manufacture, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s on 27-2-1994 should be refunded. We note that the deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is only of removal of goods from one part to the other for captive use. In the instant case the removal is confined to removal of black pipes for the purpose of galvanisation. Second point is that the galvanisation is not the process of manufacture and, therefore the tubes rema....