TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (10) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... non-supply of an internal memo dated 31-7-97 to the appellants have caused grave prejudice and denial of natural justice". 3. The appellant challenged this order of the Tribunal before the S.C. The S.C. passed the following order dated 10-1-2005, 2005 (183) E.L.T. A31 (S.C.). 4. "By the impugned order the Tribunal has remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication. In our view, there was no necessity for the Tribunal to so remit. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal must decide the matter on merits on the material available before it. The appeal is disposed off accordingly." In light of the various show cause notices issued, the following issues arise for consideration :- (i) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....various representations to the CBEC wherein the detailed manufacturing process along with the geographical location of both the plants were explained in detail. The appellant clearly stated the details of the activity carried out inside the support plant and it was explained that the final product emerged only inside the mining area of NCL when the BMD vehicle mixed different raw materials in required proportion to produce Bulk explosives. In view of the fact that the final product was manufactured inside the mining area of the coal field, the appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 182/87 which exempted all goods manufactured in a workshop situated in the mine and also once intended for use in the mine. The CBEC after receiving ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r without first being repacked; presented together; and (b) Identifiable, whether by their nature or by the relative. (c) Proportions in which they are presented; as being complementary one to another. 7. The ld. Counsel submitted that mere putting together three raw materials in different compartment of the BMD Vehicle does not amount to ''manufacture". The manufacture of their final product takes place only when the mobile van reach to the mine site of NCL where the raw materials were mixed together in required proportions to produce Bulk explosives. In this regard, the ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Kalinga Paints & Chemicals Industries reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 548 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as neither a workshop nor it was situated within the precincts of mines. Hence, the benefit of Notification 182/87 is not available to the appellant. 10. The ld. Counsel for the appellant countering the arguments submitted that in the first place the entire manufacturing process was known to the department. The Board after due consideration issued the clarification that the benefit of Notification 182/87 was available to the appellant. Further, there is no dispute that while the final product was manufactured, the mobile van was situated within the mining area of NCL. He further submitted that the issue of term workshop has also been decided by the Coordinate Bench in the appellants own case (supra). He further submitted that the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ides, perused the records and the case laws relied on by both the parties. As regards the first issue, we find force in the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that mere putting together three duty paid raw materials in different compartments of a mobile van does not satisfy the term "manufacture". Note 2 of Section VI of CETA cannot be made applicable. Further, the issue has already been settled by the Coordinate Bench in the Gulf Oil Corporation - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 40 (Tri.). As the present matter is identical in nature, we find no reason to take a different view. 12. So far as the 2nd issue is concerned, it is established beyond doubt that the Board did extend the benefit of exemption Notification 182/87 after examinin....