TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o differ from - the decision in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2005 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it has been held that concept of valuation is different from the concept of manufacture. In the case, it is noted that the galvanization on the pipes has been done within the factory and place of removal was factory gate. In these circumstances, the facts being different, the decision does not support the case of Revenue. Decided in favor of appellant. - E/1504/07 - FINAL ORDER NO: A/86306/2018 - Dated:- 8-5-2018 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) and Mr. P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri Shiva Nagesh, Advocate for appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eptember, 1965 Equivalent citations : 1967 AIR 96, 1966 SCR (1) 796 . Learned A.R. further argued that in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2000 (115) ELT 32 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that - 2. The appellants manufacture mild steel pipes and tubes. About 30% of the production is cleared at that stage, and the product is then known as black pipe. The balance production is taken to separate shed in the appellants factory premises and galvanised. The dispute is in relation to the galvanised black pipe. According to the appellants, what they clear is black pipe, the process of galvanisation is not a process of manufacture and no addition can be made to the assessable value of the black pipe on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision has been passed after examining the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. 1998 (97) ELT 5 (S.C.), thus the issue is squarely covered in appellant s own case in their favour. 5. Learned A.R. has sought to defer in this case on the ground as there is no resjudicata in the Revenue matters. It is an admitted position that there is no resjudicata in the Revenue matter but precedent needs to be followed unless there is any logical and legal reason to differ from. Learned A.R. has sought to differ from the earlier decision on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2006 (193) ELT 6 (S.C.) wherein it has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd. (supra) , Hon ble Supreme Court has explained the law in this context. Para 20 of the said decision is relevant in this regard which reads as under:- 20. It is useful to refer to the tariff description in Item No. 23A of the Central Excise Tariff. The general description of the item is `glass and `glassware . There are four categories namely, (1) flatglass (2) laboratory glassware (3) glass shells, glass globes and chimneys for lamps and lanterns and (4) other glass and glasswares including tableware. Admittedly, the bottles whether printed or not fall under category (4) mentioned above. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted it would lead to double taxation under the same tariff item. While at the gate of the main fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
