2009 (5) TMI 847

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 appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. 16/2006 Central Excise dated 21-2-2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as under :- The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tor Steel and were paying duty under the provisions of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 during the relevant period. They have also manufactured the goods on behalf ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C.E., dated 25-3-1986 was not applicable to them. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, respondent preferred an appeal to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the oral & written submissions and grounds of the appeal, set aside the OIO and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. Revenue is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his case the respondent being the one. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Since this appeal is of 2006, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR and perused the records. We find that the issue in this case is regarding the excisability of the goods manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Revenue in demanding the duty from the respondent on the items manufactured on job work basis, when the respondents have been discharging the duty liability on the production based on the capacity. 6. We also, find that an identical issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of P&H in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v Dhiman Iron and Steel Inds [2007 (219) E.L.T. 67 (P & H)]. We reproduce the....