Revenue appeal dismissed as Sulphur 90% WG product classification remains unchanged under Central Excise Act

CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the lower authority's decision dismissing revenue's appeal regarding levy of Central Excise Duty on appellant's Sulphur 90% WG product branded as CosavetFertis. The tribunal relied on precedent from C.C.E-BHARUCH VERSUS SULPHUR MILLS LTD, finding identical material composition, manufacturing processes, and product characteristics. With no changes in Central Excise Act definitions of manufacture and excisable goods, and no new judicial pronouncements affecting classification concepts, the tribunal confirmed the product's classification remained unchanged. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of whether the product "Sulphur-90% WG" with the brand name "CosavetFertis" is a manufactured goods and liable to duty.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Restoration of Appeal No. E/12064/2016:
The Revenue filed two appeals against a common order, one of which was disposed of under SVLDRS-2019 but later restored by the Tribunal due to a mistake. The other appeal against the same order was dismissed. The present appeal was taken up for disposal.

Issue 2: Classification of Product and Liability to Duty:
The product "Sulphur-90% WG" was observed to be used as fertilizer and classified under different sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue contended that the product was different from raw Sulphur and should be liable for duty. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the nature, composition, and use of the products remained the same, and there was no change in the definition of "manufacture" or "excisable goods." The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner in dropping the demand for central excise duty, citing judicial discipline and previous decisions.

Conclusion:
Based on previous Tribunal orders and judicial principles, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was made in line with the principle that when an issue is decided and accepted by the parties, it cannot be contested again in a subsequent case. The impugned order was found to be in order, and the demand for duty did not sustain.

---