2005 (5) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. -  This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents have requested for adjournment of hearing, saying that they have not received notice as required under Section 35B(4) of the Central Excise Act and that, without knowing the grounds of the appeal, they are not in a position to defend themselves. Their application, however, acknowledges receipt of notice for today's heari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erms of Sub-Section (4), in this case, as they are not in any way aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) challenged by the Revenue. The impugned order is totally in favour of the respondents and therefore Sub-Section (4) of Section 35B is not meant to be invoked by them. The application filed by the respondents for adjournment of hearing is frivolous and hence rejected. Nevertheless,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of duty, to third parties. The department treated this activity as amounting to 'manufacture' in terms of Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the CETA Schedule and demanded duty from the respondents. This demand was confirmed by the original authority but set aside by the first appellate authority. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 3. The appellant has relied on the above Chapter Note ....