1990 (7) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondents. Heard counsel. 1. The petitioners carry on business of process of galvanising various structural steel parts supplied by their customers. It is the claim of the petitioners that the process of galvanising does not bring into existence any new product having any distinct name and therefore galvanising does not constitute manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng that period. The amount of refund was not paid because the order of the Collector (Appeals) was carried in appeal before the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion in April 1988 that the process of galvanising does not amount to manufacture. The petitioners were therefore entitled to the refund of duty. As the amount of refund was not pai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The refusal to pay an amount of Rs. 1,05,159.90 has given rise to filing of the present petition. 4. Shri Hidayatullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the reading of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act by the Assistant Collector is clearly misconceived. The learned counsel urged that though subsection (1) ....