Court directs petitioner to exhaust appellate remedies, pursue refund of excise duty, and address manufacturing process issues.

The High Court disposed of all writ petitions, advising the petitioner to pursue further adjudication through appropriate channels and exhaust available appellate remedies. The Court emphasized the need for detailed examination by the competent authority to determine the nature of the manufacturing process involved in the petitioner's case. The Court directed the petitioner to file appropriate applications for refunding central excise duty and pursue pending issues through the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the product "chewing tobacco" manufactured by the petitioner falls within the ambit of excisable products under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the process undertaken by the petitioner constitutes manufacturing or mere repacking of tobacco products.
3. Whether the judgments cited by the petitioner are applicable to the current case.
4. Whether the relief sought for in the writ petitions can be granted by the High Court or should be pursued through appropriate channels.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner argued that their process of repacking tobacco does not involve manufacturing as defined under the Central Excise Act. They purchase raw tobacco, re-pack it, and sell it without converting it into a different product. The petitioner contended that the actions taken by the respondents are unjustified.
2. The Senior Panel Counsel for the first respondent disputed the petitioner's claim, stating that the nature of manufacturing should be determined through adjudication based on evidence and documents. The Tribunal had closed the appeals but allowed parties to file applications for reopening based on changed circumstances. The Court advised the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for further adjudication.
3. The petitioner cited a judgment from the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and argued that their process of repacking tobacco is similar to the case referenced. However, the Court emphasized the need for detailed adjudication by the competent authority to determine the nature of the process involved in the petitioner's case.
4. The Court highlighted that it is not an expert body to determine manufacturing processes and that such matters should be handled by experts in the Department. The Court advised the petitioner to exhaust appellate remedies and approach the Tribunal for further adjudication. The Court directed the petitioner to file appropriate applications for refunding central excise duty and pursue pending issues through the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of all writ petitions, advising the petitioner to pursue further adjudication through the appropriate channels and exhaust appellate remedies available. The Court emphasized the need for detailed examination by the competent authority to determine the nature of the manufacturing process involved in the petitioner's case.

---