AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls were filed by the party. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s Dabur India Limited are manufacturers of various Ayurvedic Medicaments and food preparations. They also produce and clear process Tamarind Paste to their other unit for manufacturer of Hajmola, Imli. They have been classifying the said Tamarind Paste under Chapter 20 clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty, if any, leviable thereon. In 2003 consequent on an audit conducted, the Department initiated action to change the classification from Chapter 20 to heading 1301.10. Various show cause-cum-demand notices were issued covering the period 16/12/99 to 31/12/2010. The demands were confirmed and on appeals the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 08/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and losses its original identity. The final product is known by a different name and a different use as input for the manufacture of other goods. He proceeded further to state that reliance placed on earlier orders of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the process undertaken with reference to said goods does not amount to manufacture will not help the party as the said order have been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 23/02/204. This conclusion of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous. The Tribunal only held that there was no speaking order by the Department and hence directed the Competent Authority to decide the representation made by the party hence the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observation giving an impression ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o manufacture some kind of non-essential vegetable oil by applying to the raw material purchased by them, the processes of neutralisation by alkali and bleaching by activated earth and/or carbon. According to the learned Counsel manufacture is complete as soon as by the application of one or more processes, the raw material undergoes some change. To say this is to equate processing to manufacture and for this we can find no warrant in law. The word manufacture used as a verb is generally understood to mean as bringing into existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in a substance, however minor in consequence the change may be. This distinction is well brought about in a passage thus quoted in Permanent Editio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paste/ concentrate except that the latter is more refined for uniform better usability. 7. The learned Counsel for M/s Dabur also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Courts order in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. Laljee Godhoo & Co. reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 514 (S.C.). In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the processes undertaken to convert raw hing to make compounded asafoetida. The Hon'ble Apex court held that there is no chemical change in these processes and the product at the starting point and the terminal point remains the same. The essential character of the product remain constant and accordingly held there is no process of manufacture. We find in the present case also the process undertaken to produce tamarind concentrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment for sudden change in the classification from Chapter 20 to Chapter 13. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for M/s Dabur pleaded at length regarding the scope of Chapter 13 vegetable extract and contended that there is no extraction from any vegetable and there is no justification to call Tamarind paste as an extraction from raw tamarind. It is clear from the flow chart explaining the processed undertaken by M/s Dabur there is no extraction of any material and certainly not from any vegetable source. The raw tamarind purchased is washed and boiled in a tilting pan and thereafter the water is extracted through hydraulic pressure. The resultant product is passed through Film evaporator which gives totally soluble solids. ....