1999 (4) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacture. 2. Shri M.P. Debnath, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the process of formulating and diluting the duty paid bought out concentrated technical grade pesticides by adding inert materials, stabilisers, solvents, emulsifier, etc. and dilute the concentrated pesticides. He further submitted that the characteristics of the technical grade pesticides and the use thereof remain the same even after the addition of stabilisers, solvents etc. that as no new product with distinct name, character or use emerges, the process carried out by them does not amount to manufacture. He relied upon the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Markfed Agro Chemicals Ltd. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 848 wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on such goods. Certainly this section does not authorise the board to issue directions which is contrary to the decision rendered by the Tribunal...........It may be that the Board may not be in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Then in that case, the board may carry the matter in appeal, but once the decision has become final by issuing circulars, the decision rendered by the Tribunal cannot be made to be nugatory." The Gujarat High Court, therefore, quashed the order No. 40/2/95-CX. The ld. Counsel also submitted that in their own case in LPA No. 211/95, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, vide order dated 6-1-1994, ordered that the Authorities shall not take into consideration the order under Section 37-B of the Act while exercis....