No new product from fractional distillation where test results showed no material difference, so exemption claim failed.

Fractional distillation of solvent C-IX was not accepted as manufacture of a new product, because the test report showed no material difference between solvent C-IX and the alleged trimethylbenzene, and those laboratory findings were not effectively disputed. On that basis, the distilled product was not treated as a distinct commodity or chemical formulation for exemption under Notification No. 276/67 dated 21-12-1967. The claim to notification benefit therefore failed, and the demand on solvent C-IX was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether fractional distillation of solvent C-IX resulted in manufacture of a new product called trimethylbenzene, and whether the product was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 276/67 dated 21-12-1967.

Analysis: The test report on the samples of solvent C-IX and trimethylbenzene showed no material difference. The lower authorities had treated the laboratory findings as conclusive, and the appellants had not effectively disputed those findings before them. On that basis, the product obtained after distillation was not accepted as a new commodity or as a chemical formulation for exemption purposes.

Conclusion: The process did not establish manufacture of a new exempt product, and the claim to the notification benefit failed. The demand on solvent C-IX was upheld.

---