2015 (11) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing in order in original dated 03.05.2002. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2004 set aside this order in original and remanded matter for fresh adjudication. On denovo adjudication vide order dated 21.08.2005 the Original authority held that the demand against the appellant is not sustainable. On appeal by the Revenue the Ld. Commissioner (A) vide order dated 28.08.2006 set aside the original order and held that the process undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture resulting in excise duty liability. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before us. 2. In the appeal it was pleaded that the Department's reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Nitco Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai-2004 (165) ELT 50 (Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant relied on the following decisions in appellant's support: a) Oriental Trimex Ltd. Vs. CCE Noida-2010 (249) ELT 259 (Tri-Del) b) Anmol Granites Vs. UOI-2006 (199) ELT 769 (Raj).  c) Royal Granites Vs. CCE Jaipur-2007 (213) ELT 393 (Tri-Del) d) Kotah Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Baroda-1995 (80) ELT 145 4. He further argued that introduction of note 6 to Chapter 25 Tariff to have a concept of deemed manufacture in respect of products of the tariff heading 2515 & 2516 clearly will indicate that prior to 01.03.2006 such process undertaken by the appellant will not amount to manufacture. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (A) and relied on the decision of this Tribunal in ....