TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect and set aside - Appeal No. E/74/2007 - Final Order No. 306/2006, Stay Order No. 254/2007 - Dated:- 12-3-2007 - [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 61/99 (H-I) Central Excise dated 7-5-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. Even though the OIA is dated 7-5-1999, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant approached the jurisdictional range office for surrender of Central Excise registration and make to know about the dismissal of appeal for non payment of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant requested the Commissioner (A) on 22-6-2004 for fixing the hearing. They reminded the Commissioner (A) on 8-10-2004, 10-10-2006 and 20-10-2006 and 12-10-2006 to furnish attested order cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeal. Since the revenue is not in a position to show evidence for proof of service of the said OIA, we have to hold that the OIA was served only on 2-2-2007. If that is accepted, there is no question of any delay as the appeal was preferred on 5-2-2007. The COD application is disposed of in the above manner. Therefore, the stay application and appeal are required to be taken up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the appeal on merits, though the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. 3.1 The learned Consultant stated that the appellants carry out the process of shaping, trimming, cutting and turning and making the rough rolls suitable for rolling machines. The above processes do not amount to manufacture and therefore, no duty liability rests with the appellant nor there is any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the merits of the case, the appellants have produced the decision of this Bench in their own case in CCE, Hyderabad v. Kamini Ispat Ltd. cited supra. This Bench has held that there is no prohibition for any operation on the components or spares or accessories received by the assessee in their factory before using the same in machinery. It has been held that the operations carried out by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
