2001 (5) TMI 92 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT: Compounding Asafoetida Not Manufacturing under Tariff Heading 1301.10

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai held that the process of compounding raw asafoetida with wheat flour and gum Arabic did not amount to manufacture ... Manufacture Issues involved: Determination of whether the process of 'compounding' of asafoetida amounts to manufacture for the purpose of classification under heading 1301.10 of the Tariff.Summary:1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the question of whether the compounding of raw asafoetida with wheat flour and gum Arabic constitutes manufacture. 2. The appellant imported raw asafoetida in the form of latex and subjected it to a process involving blending in sigma mixers, heat treatment, crushing, and packing, resulting in a powdered or lump form product. 3. The issue arose when a notice proposed to classify the resultant product under heading 1301.10 of the Tariff as a manufactured product, which was contested by the appellant. 4. The Commissioner rejected the contention that the process did not amount to manufacture, citing a judgment of the Karnataka High Court and emphasizing that the process involved mixing, blending, and dilution. 5. It was established that the process did not bring about any chemical change in the raw asafoetida, with the addition of wheat flour and gum Arabic serving as fillers to enhance its suitability for culinary use without altering its essential character. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) also concluded that the process did not amount to manufacture, referencing a circular and judgments from the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts regarding the addition of fillers not constituting manufacture. 7. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's view, highlighting the distinction between processes in different cases and citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding the conversion of whole pepper into pepper powder not amounting to manufacture. 8. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the process employed by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, leading to the allowance of one appeal and the dismissal of another, with consequential relief to be granted accordingly.