The Department preferred an Appeal to the Collector Appeals .
They fixed the lining and returned the articles.
The articles were supplied to them by their customers.
The Appeal was allowed by the Collector Appeals .
It was inter alia observed as follows The other branch of Mr. Pathaks argument is that even if it be held that the respondents do number manufacture refined oil, as is known to the market they must be held to manufacture some kind of number essential vegetable oil by applying to the raw material purchased by them, the processes of neutralization by alkali and bleaching by activated earth and or carbon.
The Appellants reply was accepted and the Assistant Collector dropped the show cause notice.
In the case of U. O. I. vs. D.C.M. reported in 1977 E.L.T. J 199 , a Constitution Bench of this Court held that manufacturing of Vanaspati from raw oil did number amount to manufacture of a new product.
The Appellants filed an Appeal to CEGAT which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
They were issued a show cause notice claiming that they were manufacturing dutiable goods and that they were number declaring the companyrect value inasmuch as the value of the articles supplied to them and the packing, forwarding charges and rubber lining charges had number been included in the assessable value.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants carry on the business of fixing rubber linings on pipes, tanks and other such articles.
N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 31st December, 1997 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short CEGAT .
