TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (2) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e F.No. 198/B/25/177/82-Ex.5, dated 1-9-1982 the Central Government asked the appellants to explain why the Order-in-appeal No. 438/440/BII-30-32/82, dated 24-3-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay should not be set aside. By the said Order-in-appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the processing of the Formic Acid dilute of 65% strength into Formic Acid of 85% strength did not fall within the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and as such, the value of its clearances should not be included in the computation of annual clearances for the purpose of Notification No 176/77-C.E. and he set aside the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, who h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us through the learned Consultant are that the Formic Acid which they purchased from M/s. May & Baker was in diluted form with 65% concentrate. May & Baker sold these goods as diluted Formic Acid 60 to 65% strength. It was not a waste product nor was it impure as alleged by the Department. The product was marketable and as such, it was purchased by the respondents. Although it is not used by M/s. May & Baker, it has various uses like textile furnishing, leather processing, food preservation, electroplating, as a germicide, as a fermentation assistant in brewing and as a coagulant for rubber, as indicated at Page 324 of the Materials Handbook by George S. Brady and Henry R Clauser (Eleventh Edition). Desiccation is a process of removing wat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not amount to manufacture. In support of this contention, the respondents have relied upon the decision in Michical v. Pinch (1906 2KB 35) on which the Collector (Appeals) also placed reliance while deciding the matter in favour of the respondents. The respondents have also stated that they did not apply for registration of patent and the patent does not belong to them. In support of this contention, they have produced photo copy of Patent A. No. 002021 (No. 146687 of 27-12-1977) which is in the name of Bakul Finechem Research Centre, Worli, Bombay, and in which there is no mention of the word "manufacture" or "manufacturer". 5.  The learned Consultant has argued before us that increasing the strength of Formic Acid to 85% is not a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h during the process of manufacturing bulk drugs gets diluted from 85% strength to about 65-70%. This diluted Fromic Acid is subjected to process by the appellants, by which the strength of Formic Acid increased from 65% to 85%". The Collector (Appeals) has held that this process does not amount to 'manufacture'. He has relied upon the judgment in the famous case of Michical v. Pinch (1906 2KB 352). He has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. (1977 E.L.T. (J 199)], in which the Supreme Court held that "to amount to 'manufacture', the process must be such that a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or use". We are inclined to up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strength. What they have used is also Formic Acid but of the lower strength. We, therefore, observe that no new product has been prepared by the respondents so as to be within the definition of 'manufacture'. The present case before us is clearly covered by earlier decision of this Tribunal, being Order No. C-462/85 in appeal No. E/506/85-C in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. M/s. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd., Aurangabad, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 889. In the case of M/s. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd., Ammonium Nitrate of 82% was purchased by the company and its was converted into Ammonium Nitrate of 99% by the process of prilling. The Central Excise duty was paid on Ammonium Nitrate of 82%. This Tribunal held that by the pril....