TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber (J)]. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and penalty against the respondents. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has been received from them, therefore we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing ld. SDR. 3. From the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Voltas Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 108, Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 609 wherein in similar circumstances, the activity of the manufacturer had been held to be excisable. Besides this, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also not referred to the terms of the Agreement, under which the respondents undertook the work, to ascertain the nature of the activi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved in the present case are the same, which were in the earlier case decided by the Tribunal and the copies of both the contracts one entered by them with the earlier party and the second entered in the present case, had not been produced by them. 5. In our view, in the light of above discussions, the matter deserves to be re-examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
