2004 (4) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also bring various duty paid chemicals falling under Chapters 28 and 29 into their factory and sell them as laboratory reagents after testing, grading, repacking and labelling, alleging that after carrying out the above mentioned processes, the commercial identity of the products is completely changed and hence the process amounts to manufacture and that the resultant product is distinct commercial commodity falling for classification under Chapter Heading 38.22 and proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 8,67,43,562.86 for the period from February, 1992 to February, 1996 under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and proposing penalty under Sections 11AB and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) E.L.T. 610 becomes very relevant. In that case it was held that purification of bought out chemicals through distillation or recrystallisation does not amount to manufacture as the product does not result in new commercial commodity having a distinct name, character or use. The case of the Department, as upheld by the Collector (Appeals), was that the products in question, namely, benzyl alcohol, ammonium chloride, sodium chloride and acetic acid, etc., have distinct entity and use as compared to the raw materials used for production and these are also known in trade parlance as distinct from the raw materials. However, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellants that, even after purification the products are used as acetic aci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ked in small packs. The High Court quashed the show cause notice issued to the assessee company proposing recovery of differential duty on the ground that ultramarine blue packed and sold in small packs for household use fell for classification under CETA sub-heading 3212.90 as distinct from ultramarine blue in bulk classifiable under CETA sub-heading 3206.19. 4. Another relevant decision in this context is that of the Apex Court in Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court held that whether a process amounts to manufacture is based on two fold tests; first, whether by the said process, a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the origina....