TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the term manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whether a unit admittedly not having plant and machinery installed in its premises and not carrying on any activity falling within the said provisions can be considered to be a factory under Central Excise Act, 1944; 2. Whether or not, admittedly manufacture of excisable goods entirely on job work basis does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel Shri Parikh for the Appellant and Shri Nankani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sheth, learned Counsel, for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue, relying on various notifications i.e. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. (G.E. No. 36) read with Notification No. 350/86-C.E. and Notification No. 91/95-C.E. etc., vehemently submitted that the Tribunal c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tesh Dadhania, on behalf of the respondent, M/s. Amul Industries Pvt. Ltd., in which he has stated, inter alia, that the respondent had paid ₹ 1,78,25,953/- over and above the duty paid through cenvat credit and a total of ₹ 5,47,79,866/- has been paid. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has produced the certificate of Superintendent of Central Excise, Rajkot, dated 4-5-2005, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, the learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages , reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 7. To the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, no rejoinder is filed by the Revenue. We have, therefore, no reason to discard the averments made therein or to di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
