1983 (12) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spute before us is whether the product "EMULSIFIER T" manufactured by the appellants (to be referred to hereinafter as HPC) was excisable, during the material period, having regard to the definition of "manufacture" in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act.). HPC's contention before the Assistant Collector was that "EMULSIFIER T" was an intermediate product obtained in a continuous process and that it was not a finished product. This contention did not find favour with the Assistant Collector and he held that the product was excisable and fell under Item No. 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (C.E.T., for short). The appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Collecto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayed that "EMULSIFIER T", an intermediate product, be declared as not excisable under Item No. 15AA, setting aside the Appellate Collector's order with consequential relief to HPC. 4. The appeal was heard on 25-10-1983. Shri D.P. Bhave, on behalf of HPC, besides reiterating the aforesaid submissions, contended that - (i) For years together, since 1966, the Department did not tax the product under Item 15AA CET though HPC had disclosed the fact of manufacture of the product to the Department again on 1-12-1972. The Department did not take any objection. (ii) The product was an intermediate one arising in the course of manufacture of speciality oils. (iii) It was produced only for captive consumption and not for sale. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hether it was "goods". In this connection, the decision of the Madras High Court in E.L.T. 1978 p. 653 was cited as also 1978 E.L.T. p. 1. (iii) Emulsifiers were Organic Surface Active Agents. The question whether "manufacture was involved in the production of "EMULSIFIER T" was, therefore, irrelevant. (iv) Notification No. 101/66 was, like all statutory notifications, to be read as part of the statute. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. (i) In his letter dated 12-8-1976 to the HPC, the Superintendent of Central Excise has referred to the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist to the effect that the surface active tension of "Emulsifier T" was more than 20 dynes. This seems to be the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mixture of two or more immiscible liquids held in suspension by small percentages of substances called emulsifiers......." At page 986, it says - "surface-active agent" - (surfactant). Any compound that reduces surface tension when dissolved in water or water solutions, or which reduces interfacial tension between two liquids, or between a liquid and a solid". There are three categories of surface active agents; detergent, wetting agents and emulsifiers......" 8. HPC's case is not that the product is not an emulsifier but that it is not known or marketed as an organic surface active agent, that it is not "goods" and that the production process does not amount to "manufacture". We have, in the circumstances, to go on the b....