2003 (10) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i V. Sridharan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Appeal No. E/2206/97 has been filed by the Department against order-in-appeal No. GS/167/B-III/07 dtd. 24-6-1997. In the said order-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine the refund claim and consider the same if otherwise admissible. It is seen that the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es not amount to manufacture. They further contend that if the processes do not amount to manufacture, then duty cannot be collected the second time. They also cite the following case laws in support of their claim :- (1) Rubber Inds. (India) v. Collector of C. Ex. Bombay-I - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 116 (Tribunal) (2) CCE, Bombay-III v. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. - 1996 (63) ECR 330 (Tribunal) (3) CCE, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X