TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that - "I find, there is a lot of merit in the basic submissions of the appellant that the process undertaken by them would not constitute manufacture". Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) further held that - "Hence when the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority he was bound to give the benefit of Modvat in view of the ratio of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR submits that the processes undertaken by the respondent herein made the goods marketable and therefore, are processes amounting to manufacture. He submits that since these processes amounted to manufacture, therefore, the Additional Commissioner had rightly confirmed the demand for duty as also imposed the penalty and that on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in treating these pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity control did not amount to manufacture. Fixing of brand/trade name also did not bring into existence any new item and therefore, this also did not amount to manufacture. We further note that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 823. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
