9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order held that "The adjudicating officer has correctly rejected their claim for refund as the appellants are obviously not entitled of such a refund. The impugned order, is therefore upheld and the appeal is rejected". 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to by the appellants as 'deemed removal' of pipes and tubes in terms of explanation to Rules 9 and 49. It was contended by them that since M.S. Pipes and Tubes were exempt from payment of duty prior to 27-2-1994, M.S. Pipes and Tubes contained in the stocks of galvanised pipes as on 27-2-1994 would be exempt from payment of duty as "deemed removal" had already taken place on or before 27-2-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that these pipes were removed for galvanising and were galvanised on or before 27-2-1994. He submits that during that period the goods were exempt and that in terms of Rules 9 and 49 deemed removals were there. He also submits that the process of galvanisation is not a process of manufacture and since the galvanisation is not the process of manufacture, M.S. Pipes were not dutiable, therefore what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deemed removal under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is only of removal of goods from one part to the other for captive use. In the instant case the removal is confined to removal of black pipes for the purpose of galvanisation. Second point is that the galvanisation is not the process of manufacture and, therefore the tubes remain tubes. In the instant case, we note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
