2000 (2) TMI 161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(J)]. - This appeal arises from order-in-original No. 51/93, dated 14-10-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore confirming duty demand of Rs. 32,900/- proposed in the show cause notice under Rule 9(2) of the CE Rules, read with Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944, besides confiscating the seized goods, however releasing the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, besides penalty of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... another Larger Bench comprising of three Members in the case of National Dyers v. CCE as reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 83 (T). In the application for rectification of mistake, it was pointed out that these two Larger Bench judgments had not been taken note of by the Tribunal and therefore, there was mistake apparent on record. On consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal accepted the plea and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....electricity was held to be hit by the provisions of the Notification and hence the demands were confirmed. The learned Counsel submits that the same issue was considered by the 5-Member Larger Bench in the case of Adreena Industries (supra) and another Larger Bench of 3-Members in the case of National Dyers (supra). In both these judgments the Tribunal analysed Notification and held that the proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e question which arises for consideration is whether this process of drying the fabrics would be a process of manufacture to dis-entitle the benefit of the Notification. This question was addressed by the Larger Bench in the case of Adreena Industries (supra) and the Tribunal clearly held that the process of hydro-extraction or drying by use of power is not a process of manufacture and the benefit....