9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oles. The steel tubular poles are made by welding the steel pipes of different diameters. The appellant had set up their unit in December 2005 and since their unit was located in the area specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE and the goods being made by them were covered under this notification, they filed the declaration to the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for availing this exemption and started availing of this exemption. However, in the year 2006, the Apex court in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata vide judgment dated 27/3/06 reported in 2006 (03) LCX 0008 held the activity of joining pipes one with another of different diameters to obtain a pole of the desired length does not amount to manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2008 (03) LCX 0013 had held that joining of duty paid pipes of different diameters by welding would amount to manufacture. There is no dispute that the process of the appellant is that described in the Apex court's judgment in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra). Obviously, the Additional Commissioner's order dated 31/3/08 was in total ignorance of the Apex court's judgment dated 28/3/08 in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra). However, even after the Apex court's judgment in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra), the Department did not take any corrective action for a long time. It is only in the year 2013 that the Department issued two show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002. On appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), against this order, the same was upheld in toto vide order-in-appeal dated 11/6/14. Against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these two appeals have filed alongwith stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri Rajesh Gupta, CA, learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the non-payment of duty in respect of clearances of tubular poles by the appellant was in pursuance of the order dated 31/3/08 passed by Additional Commissioner by which he, holding that the fabrication of steel tubular poles by joining the steel pipes of different diameters, does not amount to manufacture, had even cancelled their registration certificate, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had started the manufacture of tubular poles in the year 2005, they had been allowed to avail of benefit of Notification No. 56/02-CE by treating their process as amounting to manufacture. It is only in view of Apex Court's judgment dated 27/3/06 in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata (supra), that the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31/3/08 cancelled the appellant's registration certificate and at the same time while rejecting the refund claim under Notification No. 56/02-CE for March and April 2006, also demanded Cenvat credit of Rs. 12,14,590/- in respect of inputs. There is no dispute that the Apex Court in its subsequent judgment dated 28/3/08 in the case of Prachi Industries vs. CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
