2006 (10) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  In this application filed by the department (appellant in the above appeal), it is contended to the effect that the final order passed by this Bench is erroneous for the reason that the appellant's grievance against availment of proforma credit by the respondents for the purpose of payment of duty on doubled/multifol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling/multifolding of yarns undertaken by the assessee did not amount to 'manufacture' and hence the goods in question were not dutiable. This conclusion is erroneous. It is also submitted that the Revenue's appeal ought not to have been dismissed. Learned SDR prays for amendment of the final order in keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. There is no representation for the part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0-9-1999." We note that it was in an appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid Final Order No. 2344/99 [2000 (124) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.)] of the Tribunal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2005 (183) E.L.T. 238 (S.C.)] held that the process undertaken by the assessee during the material period did not amount to 'manufacture'. The party has claimed that they had not availed any proforma cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see where the final products were not dutiable. Learned SDR has prayed for amendment in our final order to this effect only. 4. Accordingly, we substitute the following para for para-3 of Final Order No. 1464/2005 dated 2-11-2005 in appeal No. E/400/99 :- "After considering the submissions, we find that as the process of doubling/multifolding of yarns undertaken by the assessee during t....