2000 (12) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sekaran, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - These Revenue appeals are against Orders-in-Appeal No. 3/95, dated 8-2-1995 and OIA No. 13 to 15/95, dated 13-2-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the proceedings for recovery of duty on PSC pools on the ground that respondent is not the manufacturer as respondent had awarded the contract to independent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Ld. Counsel Shri Dhanasekaran appearing for respondents submits that Revenue has no case in the matter and submits that the issue is fully covered in terms of Final Order Nos. 1660 to 1664/98, dated 21-8-1998 wherein the Tribunal already examined the contract and has clearly concluded that the relationship between the KSEB and the contractor was on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 's final Order Nos. 1660 to 1664/98, dated 21-8-1998 would apply to the facts of this case as in that case the Tribunal has examined the contract and concluded that the relationship between the TNEB and the contractors was on principal to principal basis and the real manufacturer was the contractor. 5. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and hence respectf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X