KANKARIYA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein activity undertaken by them was held by the adjudicating authority as manufacturing activity as per Section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Chapter Note 9 of the Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Consequently, demand of duty along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the activity of dilution of sulphuric acid and finished product is supplied to the battery companies for use in the batteries. The contention of the appellant is that the said activity is not a manufacturing activity as they only mixed two chemicals. The Revenue is of the view that the said activity amounts to manufacture, accordingly, impugned proceedings were initiated and it was held that the activity undertaken by the appellant is a manufacturing activity. Accordingly, impugned demands were confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant are before us.

(2.) HEARD both sides. Considered the submissions.