TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the limit of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who, by his order dated 29th of August, 1981 partly allowed the appeal; While disposing of the appeal, the Appellate Collector distinguished three categories among the activities of the petitioners. The first category was naked tanks and vessels received from the petitioners' manufacturers for the purpose of rubber-linings. The second and third categories were naked tanks and vessels or old tanks and vessels received from user-consumers or customers for rubber-lining. As far as the first category of activity was concerned, the Collector (Appeals) held that the said activity amounted to manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f March, 1986. The reliance placed by Mr. Parikh on that judgment is, therefore, fully justified. The category of naked tanks and vessels received from user-consumers/customers for rubber-lining is not in any way different from the old tanks and vessels received for rubber-lining or re-rubber-lining. Therefore, the ratio in Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd.'s case will straightaway apply. The hearing of the review notice will, therefore, be an exercise in futility and in any case, as the law stands, today, that notice cannot be sustained. 5. The next question is whether the rubber-lining of the naked tanks, vessels received from the manufacturers themselves amounts to manufacture. It has been held by the Collector (Appeals) that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into account while computing the real value of goods manufactured on job work basis because manufacturing cost, as referred to by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., 1977 E.L.T. J-177, means the cost incurred by the manufacturer that is the job worker. 7. Normally, this point should have been agitated by the petitioners by preferring an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals). Since, however, this judgment was given on 6th of November, 1981 after the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was passed and since this is the settled law as far as this Court is concerned, there is no impediment in correcting this part of the order of the Collector (Appeals). It will have to be, therefore, held that for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
