9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that such coating amounts to manufacture resulting in a new commercial commodity, has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 83,40,81,309/- (Rupees eighty-three crores forty lakhs eighty-one thousand three hundred and nine only) and Rs. 63,35,840/- (Rupees sixty-three lakhs thirty-five thousand eight hundred forty only) against M/s. PSL Ltd., along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 72,98,74,433/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 25. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on Shri V.M. Joshi, Asstt. Vice President of the Company. 3. It is seen that the appellant is one of the factories of PSL group, situated at Visakhapatnam and is engaged in coating of bare pipes supplied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completing the adjudication proceedings, the Commissioner has held that the activity undertaken by the appellants results in emergence of a new and distinct excisable product classifiable under heading 73.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned before us. 5. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Chandra Sekhar, ld. Advocate for the revenue. 6. The appellants have placed strong reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tega India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 390 (S.C.) as also on the Board's Circular No. 17/88, dated 1-6-88. Reference and reliance has also been mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips that the headings 7303 and 7304 of Central Excise Tariff Act makes no difference between coated and uncoated pipes. 8. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the above-referred decision, we find no justification for holding that the activity undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture. Inasmuch as the above decision refers to the earlier decisions and being latest on the issue, we do not feel it necessary to refer to earlier decision, which already stands considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. We also find that the Commissioner, vide its order dated 18-03-2004 passed in respect of the appellant's other units has already held that the said activity as not amounting to manufacture. It has been shown to us by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
