2017 (1) TMI 1070

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting to Rs. 11,56,518.00 of the appellant M/s Aneri Construction. 2. The appellant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri Anand Nainawati and the Revenue has been represented by the Ld. AR, Shri Alok Srivastava. 3. Both sides have been heard. The matter concerns with the refund claim of Rs. 11,56,518.00 filed under Section 11 B of CEA, 1944 for excise duty paid erroneously in excess . The appellant claims that the amount of refund claim of Rs. 11,56,518.00 has been paid by the job worker, M/s Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Bharuch inadvertedly/erroneously as the subject activity of coating pipes/tubes did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944.  3.1 After having carefully gone through the facts o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 27.06.2006 by which time the above mentioned chapter note had come into effect. It is, therefore, clear that the said chapter note will come into play for determining the question whether the process of coating of the MS Pipes in question, undertaken by WGSRL, Bharuch, amounts to manufacture or not. It is a settled law that in case a statute creates a deeming fiction, the said provision has to be given full effect to. Mention may be made of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court s decision in the case of Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers vs. Union of India and others reported in 1980 (6) ELT 487 (Del.) wherein, in para 2 of concurring judgement, it has been held as under:- "2. When the legislature by deeming effect defines a term in a st....