TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for our consideration : "1. That in view of the definition of the term "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whether a unit admittedly not having plant and machinery installed in its premises and not carrying on any activity falling within the said provisions can be considered to be a "factory" under Central Excise Act, 1944; 2. Whether or not, admittedly ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel Shri Parikh for the Appellant and Shri Nankani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sheth, learned Counsel, for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, relying on various notifications i.e. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. (G.E. No. 36) read with Notification No. 350/86-C.E. and N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... took us through the affidavit-in-reply dated 1-5-2007, filed by one Shri Hitesh Dadhania, on behalf of the respondent, M/s. Amul Industries Pvt. Ltd., in which he has stated, inter alia, that the respondent had paid ₹ 1,78,25,953/- over and above the duty paid through cenvat credit and a total of ₹ 5,47,79,866/- has been paid. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has produced the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was, in any case, not a recurring problem. 6. In support of the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages", reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 7. To the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, no rejoinder is filed by the ....