TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods produced during that process are excisable or not would fall within the meaning of the expression determination of rate of duty of excise or the value of the goods for the purposes of assessment of duty’ used in Section 35G(1) and Section 35L(b) of the Act, appeal involves determination of a question relating to the rate of duty of excise or value of goods for the purposes of assessment, would lie before the Supreme Court and not before this Court, appeal dismissed as not maintainable - 2160 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2010 - Harsha Devani and H.B. Antani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Naynaben K. Gadhvi, for the Appellant. Shri Dhaval Shah, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.B. Antani, J. (Oral)]. The present appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the process carried out by the respondent would amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Act. The Tribunal has placed reliance on various decisions which are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the issue involved in this case is whether re-glasslining of machinery and equipment amounts to manufacture or not as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that as substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, the appeal deserves to be admitted. 3. Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, at the outset, submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant is not maintainable. Learned advocate placed reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndertaken by it amounted to manufacture and it was required to pay duty on the entire value of re-glasslined vessels. It was the contention of the appellant that it is not liable to pay duty as the activities of re-glasslining of old vessels did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The aforesaid stand of the assessee was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Anand Division, Anand as well as Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the arguments at length and considering the judgment cited by both the sides, the Tribunal held that re-lining of old and used cylinders does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
