TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lted in the rubber lining tank assessable to duty and hence he upheld the duty demand of Rs. 11,00,553/- as held by the order in original. 2. Shri Saravanan, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the very issue was considered in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Industrial Roller Corporation and Another as reported in 2000 (36) RLT 158 wherein the Tribunal examined the situations arising from three cases, (1) naked tanks/vessels received from manufacturer (2) naked tanks/vessels received from users/consumers (3) old tanks/vessels received from customers, for re-rubber lining. After due consideration of the issue in the light of the tariff and other judgments on this very point, the Tribunal by major....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein they have carried out such activity of rubber lining and cleared the same on payment of duty. The dispute presently is restricted to only with regard to the tanks received by them on job work basis for carrying out the simple activity of rubber lining which the Collector has accepted as not a process of manufacture and has distinguished the judgment. It is his contention that the citations are not distinguishable and the Collector ought to have followed the same. 3. Shri S. Kannan, learned DR reiterates the departmental view and pleads for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that such activity would bring into existence different goods which should be referred to as rubber lined tanks and there is certainly difference in its function....