Per Jyoti Balasundaram
The issue in dispute in the present appeal namely as to whether the process of drawing of wires from wire rods for use in transformers amounts to manufacture stands settled against the Revenue by the apex courts decision in CCE Vs Technoweld Industries [2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC)] [LQ/SC/2003/408] . We also note that assessee has succeeded in its appeal against the same impugned order by which demand was confirmed but redemption fine set aside and penalty reduced (in the present appeal Revenue challenges setting aside of fine and reduction of penalty), as seen from Final Order No.715/03 dt. 9.9.03. Following the ratio of the apex courts decision cited supra, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal and hence is dismissed.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai v. Alco Flex
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai v. Alco Flex
(Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench At Chennai)
Appeal Nos.E/104 of 2003 & E/CO/17 of 2004 | 20-01-2010
Advocate List
- Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR, Shri V.P.Namasivayam, Consultant For the Appellants.
Bench
- MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
- DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY
Eq Citations
- LQ/CESTAT/2010/364
Head Note
A. Customs — Drawback — Manufacture — Drawing of wires from wire rods for use in transformers — Held, amounts to manufacture — Ratio of Technoweld case (2003) 155 ELT 209 SC, followed B. Customs — Cross-objection — Nature and scope of — Held, cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon reply to the Revenue's appeal and hence is dismissed — Customs Act, 1962 — S. 129 — Cross-objection
