9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to obtain box strappings. The Assistant Commissioner demanded an amount of Rs. 1,22,62,877.21 after allowing Modvat credit due to them. The appellants were aggrieved over the order of the Original Authority. Hence they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the issues involved set aside the order of the Original Authority and allowed the appeal of the Respondents. The Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds :- (i) The CESTAT, New Delhi vide its Final Order No. 493/05 Ex, dated 27-6-2005 [2005 (188) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal)] as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given vide Civil Appeal No. 7868 dt. 9-11-2003 [2003 (158) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The said CESTAT vide its Final Order No. 493/2005 EX-B dated 27-6-2005 [2005 (188) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal)} held that the process under taken by the assessee for making Steel strips known as "Box Strappings" from cold rolled steel strips are not mere processes of slitting or cutting the strips or simply painting them. The processes, which are disclosed, also include Heat treatment. When all the processes are cumulatively taken into consideration and such multiple processes bring about a distinct product, they would amount to manufacture for the purpose of the Excise Tariff. The "Box Strappings" are classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 7211.31. 3. We have heard both the parties. In this case originally, eight Show Cause Notices were issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly followed the decisions in the case of ONGC v. CCE reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1182 wherein it was held that the demand is beyond the scope of Show Cause Notice. Since the corrigendum has changed the classification, the same has to be treated as a fresh Show Cause Notice. The period of limitation has to be computed as per the date of corrigendum. In that view of the matter, the demand would be time barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Jyothi Laboratories v. CCE [1994 (72) E.L.T. 669] and Santha Industrial v. CCE [1995 (78) E.L.T. 556 (T)] and dropped the proceedings. She has further held that the second Show Cause Notice cannot invoke the longer period of limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
