9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant feeling aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 100 & 101/2018-TRY dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli who has remanded the matters back to the file of the lower authority for fresh adjudication, has preferred the present appeals. 1.2 The appellant manufactures Iso Butyl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis is an exception in terms of Rule 4(6) ibid., and not because of they being exempted goods. 1.3 Two Show Cause Notices i.e., SCN No. 02/2016 dated 13.01.2016 and SCN No. 37/2016 dated 29.07.2016 came to be issued alleging that the activity of manufacture was a service on which duty was required to be paid under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004, which culminated in common Order-in-Original Nos. 155 & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) that the activity of the appellant amounted to manufacture which in turn did not attract service tax, was bad since non-leviability of duty on the goods manufacture on job work basis was provided by way of an exception as per Rule 4(6) which therefore could not be termed as manufacturing "exempted goods". She further contended that the period in dispute is 2013-14 to 2014-15 (financial years); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials placed on record and after a careful consideration of the same, I am of the prima facie view that the remand Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) requires no interference. The impugned Order is also sustained on the issue of larger period for the reasons given by the lower authorities and also since the communication is indirect, by the principal manufacturer and not by the assessee. 6. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
