TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess involved. Said letter is significant. In view of this Court's decision it is not known under what circumstances the letter was written. It is to be noted that the penalty amounts were equivalent to the extra demand raised but the Tribunal has reduced to it to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal No. 1856 of 2005 is clearly without merit and we dismiss it. So far as Civil Appeal No. 5398 of 2002 is concerned, the period involved is 14-12-1980 to 15-12-1985 when the first notice was issued on 9-12-1986. It appears that in the show cause notice reply there was no reference to this aspect. factually the stand that there was no use of power is unsustainable. Coming to the period of limitation the five years period has to be reckoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were packed and cleared. Note 3 to Chapter 52 reads as follows : "In relation to the manufacture of products of Heading Nos. 52.07, 52.08 and 52.09, bleaching, mercersing, dyeing, printing, water proofing, shrink-proofing, organdie process or any other process or any one or more of these processes shall amount to manufacture." 3. In Civil Appeal No. 1856 of 2005 the stand taken by the appellants was that they were not using power in the processing of the fabrics and, therefore, the benefit which they were earlier availing was available. They had not used any power while undertaking the activities of bleaching, mercersing, dyeing, printing, washing, drying and finishing before the fabrics were packed and cleared. It was further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the amendment carried out was to be given retrospective effect. It was held that factually the adjudicating authority had found that power had been used. 7. Appellants took the stand that the processes undertaken amounted to manufacture but for the deemed definition of manufacture as noted above the processes undertaken by the appellants would not amount to manufacture. In respect of the above processes undertaken by the appellant and no power was used. Appellants claimed benefit of exemption granted to "cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power". Appellants took the stand that since they had not used the power in respect of the above processes, the benefit was available. They submitted that the use of power was only in certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the appeal No. 1856 of 2005 is clearly without merit and we dismiss it. 8. So far as Civil Appeal No. 5398 of 2002 is concerned, the period involved is 14-12-1980 to 15-12-1985 when the first notice was issued on 9-12-1986. It appears that in the show cause notice reply there was no reference to this aspect. So far merit is concerned, the plea was that there is no aid of power used. It is to be noted that in paragraph 9 of the order, CEGAT observed as follows : "If pumping of brine into salt pans and lifting of coke and lime stone to the platform with the aid of power can be treated as part of the continuous process of manufacture, there is no reason to hold otherwise when power is used for lifting water and pouring the same in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
