9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER Per : ASHOK JINDAL : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the demand of Central Excise duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the presumption that the Service Tax activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, therefore, they are liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e activity of erection, commissioning and installation of towers and on that activity the appellant is paying Service Tax. 4. An investigation was conducted against the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2011-2012 (upto December 2010) and on the basis of the investigation it was revealed that the activity of galvanizing by the appellant amounts to manufacture and they are not paying duty thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, the demand against the appellant is not sustainable as the facts which are not in dispute that the appellant is manufacturing structural items and paying duty thereon on their manufacture and for goods falling under chapter 73 the appellant has undertaken job-work under Notification No.214/86 dated 25.03.1986 and cleared the same to principal manufacturer, who paid duty thereon. Further, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided that during the impugned period, the activity of galvanizing falling under chapter 72 amounts to manufacture or not and the appellant is liable to pay duty thereon or not? 10. We find that the activity of galvanizing of the items falling under chapter 72 amounts to manufacture was introduced w.e.f. 08.04.2011 through Chapter (V) of the Finance Act, 2011. 11. As during the impugned period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
