2015 (10) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....funds so sanctioned were subject to review by Revenue in terms of different orders as appearing in column 4 of the Table -A. Following such review orders, Revenue filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). 2. While hearing this batch of appeals, Tribunal by a common Stay Order No.375 - 384/2009 dated 14.05.2009 as appearing in column 6 of Table A stayed operation of the impugned order. TABLE-A Period O/O No. & Date Sanctioning refund Refund given to TNEB (Rs.) Commissioner Review Order No & Date O/A No. & Date Commissioner (Appeals) upholding Dept' appeal CESTAT Stay No./Appeal No. CESTAT Stay Order No. & Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11.10.1993 to 31.3.1994 24/08-RF dt.28.3.08 14, 48, 150/- C.No.IV/02/223/08-Review dt.25.4.08 04/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/130/09 in E/197/09 375/09 dt.14.5.09 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 25/08-RF dt.8.5.08 26, 04, 659/- C.No.IV/02/224/08-Review dt.8.5.08 05/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/131/09 in E/198/09 376/09 dt.14.5.09 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 39/08-RF dt.22.4.08 24, 91, 764/- C.No.IV/02/278/08-Review dt.28.5.08 06/2009-CE(SLM) dt.13.1.2009 E/S/132/0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed O/A No. & Date 1 2 3 4 5 11.10.1993 to 31.3.1994 70/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 14, 48, 150/- 04/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 63/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 71/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 26, 04, 659/- 05/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 64/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1996 72/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 24, 91, 764/- 06/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 65/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1997 73/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 45, 73, 317/- 07/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 66/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 74/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 45, 82, 083/- 08/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 67/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.4.1998 to 31.3.1999** ** **     1.4.1999 to 30.9.1999 75/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 28, 62, 905/- 10/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 68/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.10.1999 to 31.3.2000** ** **     1.4.2000 to 30.9.2000 76/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 47, 89, 780/- 09/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 69/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 1.10.2000 to 31.1.2001 77/08(ADC) dt.24.11.08 21, 85, 655/- 11/2009-CE(SLM) dt.11.3.2009 70/2014-CE dt.7.2.2014 TOTAL (A) 2, 55, 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e shall not be classification of goods under Tariff Heading 7308.90. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in TANSI Engineering Works Vs Commissioner reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T.407 (Tri.) holding that the appellant is not liable to duty as has been held by Tribunal in the own case of the appellant, in Appeal No.E/1461 & 1462/1996 disposed on 05.01.2001. 5.2 Revenue being aggrieved by the above refund orders all dated 22.4.2008 went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such appeals were registered as Appeal Nos. 4 to 13/2009-CE (SLM) in the file of the said Authority. One such appeal was disposed by that authority by his Order No.04/09-CE [SLM] on 13.01.2009 reversing the decision of grant of refund to the appellant and such decision was followed in disposing rest of the appeals. 5.3 Being aggrieved by all the orders dated 13.1.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who reversed refunds sanctioned by Adjudicating Authority, appellants came before Tribunal in the batch or appeals registered as E/ 197/2009 to E/206/2009 (at Sl. No. 15 to 24 of the cause list today). Appreciating the ratio laid down in the own cases of appellant as hereinbefore stated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by appellant were embedded to earth and not severable and became immovable property. Such material fact was appreciated by Tribunal in various judgments aforesaid in the own case of appellant and such activity remained unchanged even in the proceedings under appeal in the present batch of appeals before Tribunal. 7.2 Revenue supported orders of Authority below. 8. In the 2 (two) Appeals registered as Nos. E/ 41368 & 41369/2013 before Tribunal, the issue involved is whether the activity of the nature carried out by the appellant as stated hereinbefore amounts to manufacture and the goods shall come under the Tariff Entry No. 7308 2011. Added to this, there is another issue involved relating to admissibility of CENVAT credit. 9. The appeal No. E/1229/2004 raises the issue whether scrap sold by appellant is liable to duty? 10. Revenue submits today that Supreme Court dismissed appeal of Revenue on the ground that there was a decision of the apex court against Revenue in Dodsal Manufacturing (P) Ltd. - 2001 (127) ELT 324 (SC). But Apex Court in another case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs. Man Structurals Ltd. - 2001 (130) ELT 401 (SC) , recorded that decision....