TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner herein, a manufacturer of electro thermo appliances used for domestic purposes, had diluted imported insecticides under sub-heading 3808.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, to make them marketable. In this process, solvent, perfume and stabilising agents etc. were added. 2. The contention of the respondents is that this process amounts to "manufacture" and, therefore, the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been enclosed as Annexure A to the writ petition. 4. The said circular refers to the order of Customs Excise Board Tribunal No.300/1993 dated 15.9.1993 in the case of Markfed Agro Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise. Chandigarh, reported in [1994] 50 ECR 417 (T) holding that the process involving dilution would not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tio and declares decision of the Tribunal in the case of Markfed Agro Chemicals(Supra) as an incorrect and a wrong decision. We need not examine this issue in great depth and deal as similar contention was raised and answered by a Single Judge of this Court in Kissan Chemicals v. Union of India, 1996 (88) ELT 648 (DEL.) . It has been held that the circular in question is contrary to the decision r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents. This decision has also been followed by the Division Benches of Gujarat High Court in Indichem V. Union of India. 1996 (88) ELT 35 (GUJ.), Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd. vs. Chairman, C.B.E & C. 2012 (285) ELT 498 (BOM.) and Himachal High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Karam Chand, 20-09 (236) ELT 647 (H.P.). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ....