9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is aggrieved with Order-in-Original No. 4/05 dated 8-4-05 confirming demands for larger period in respect activity carried out by the appellants in coating steel pipes with cement mortar on its outside and M.S. Weld mesh in its inside. The said process is referred to as "guniting". The appellants are carrying on the activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment and appellants having not suppressed any facts or mis-declared any facts, therefore, the proviso to Section 11A of the act is not attracted and the demands are barred by time. Their pleas have been negatived by the Commissioner and demands have been confirmed for larger period including imposition of penalty. The same is under challenge in this appeal. Learned counsel submits that in iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; UOI v. Parle Products, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 492 (4) UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) (5) CCE v. PSI Corrosion Control Ltd., 2003 (151) E.L.T. 439 (6) Wainganga Sahkari S. Karkhana Ltd., 2002 (142) E.L.T. 12 (7) Suvidha Engineers v. CCE, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 323 (8) &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, we notice from the facts of the case that appellants were not the manufacturers of steel pipes. They were only carrying on the process of lining the pipes with cement mortar and M.S. mesh weld. The steel pipes are duty paid. In an identical matter in the case of PSL Ltd., (supra), the Tribunal has clearly held that such process would not bring into existence new goods and the process would no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
