TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the law and the reason for not accepting the contention of the noticee, the manner in which the first appellate authority has set that finding aside, leaves room for doubt about the extent of scrutiny of the rival claims that was undertaken. It is proper that the impugned order, in the absence of adequate justification, be set aside and remanded back to the first appellate authority - appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various goods that were claimed to have been procured for export which according to the original authority, was not manufacture as defined in section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in Ford India Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2011 (272) ELT 353 (Mad.)]. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC)] was also cited. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent insists that the process amounts to manufacture with reference to note 6 of section XVI of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and relies upon decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Laminated Packings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1990 (49) ELT 326 (SC)] and many others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cenvat credit for all items except paints. 5. Though the original authority has rendered an elaborate analysis of the law and the reason for not accepting the contention of the noticee, the manner in which the first appellate authority has set that finding aside, as noted supra, leaves room for doubt about the extent of scrutiny of the rival claims that was undertaken. The contentions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
