Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. G.T. Auto Industries Versus CCE. Chandigarh

2016 (11) TMI 781 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Process amounting to manufacture - supply of carline and body side pillar - the activity of Punching, Notching, Bending in case of carline as well as edge bending in case of Body Side Pillars - job work - Held that: - after doing Punching, Notching, Bending out of the raw material namely blank supplied by Rail Coach Factory and that can be used as part of the Rail Coach Factory. Therefore, on merits, we find that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. - On the basis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

period is to be taken into account then also some art of the period five years. As we have already held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable, in the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. - Appeal No. E/4606/2004-Ex(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 61531/2016 - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Poojan Malhotra, Advocate- for the appellant Shri G.M. S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are the appellant has received an order from the Rail Coach Factory for supply of carline and body side pillar and got the same manufactured out of the raw-material namely Blank supplied by the Rail Coach Factory. The work was got done by appellant on job work basis. By doing the activity of Punching, Notching, Bending in case of carline as well as edge bending in case of Body Side Pillars, the claim of the appellant is that the same does not amou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant is engaged in the activity of Punching, Notching, Bending and no new product [articles has been emerged, therefore, the activity does not amount to manufacture. To support his contention, he drew our attention to the letter dated 18.9.1992 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh clarifying the position that the said activity does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, he prayed that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. It is his submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue in detail and the activity undertaken by the appellant duly covered Chapter note 6 of Section XVII of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He further submits that the appellant has failed to disclose their activity, therefore, the extended period has rightly been invoked. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. The activity undertaken by the appellant is not disputed. We have also perused the Chapter note .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version