TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esses undertaken by the unit shall amount to manufacture for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. Table 1 gives the details of appeal: S No Appeal No Finished Products Inputs Description CETH Description CETH 1 E/1901/2006 Maharastra Aldehydes & Chemicals Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise Raigad Hexane Fraction for ChromotographyLic hrosolv 2710.13 Hexane fraction from Petroleum Products 2710.12 Petroleum Benzene 60^0-80^0 CGR 2710.90 Hexane (Petroleum Benzene or Petroleum Eher) 2710.12 2 E/155/2008 Bharat Dye Chem Industries Vs CCE Belapur Various Grades of Hexane LR, AR, HPLC, SG 2710.13 Hexane 2710.12 Various Grades of Petroleum Ether (Benzine) 2710.13 Petroleum Ether 2901.13 3 E/894/2009 CCE Belapur Vs Sunbel Alloys Company of India Ltd Hexane for ChromotographyLic hrosolv 27101112 Hexane from petroleum products 27101980 Petroleum Benzene 60^0-80^0 CGR 27101113 Petroleum Benzine 60-80^0C FS 27101980 4 E/1475/2010 Reshma Organics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Belapur Various Grades of Hexane LR, AR, HPLC, SG 27101113 (2710.13) Ordinary Grade Hexane 2710.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appeal No. 179 of 2014 (Original Side) order dated January 20, 2015]while remanding the matter, for fresh consideration by the tribunal made observations as follow: "19. In the present case, there is a far more serious legal infirmity. The appellants claim to be carrying on job work for E.Merck Specialties (P) Ltd. The principals of the appellants (E.Merck) faced identical allegations and were proceeded against for having carried on manufacturing activity in their premises. The product or goods in relation to which the allegations are made are identical. The Tribunal upheld the arguments of E.Merck and allowed its Appeal. That order was relied upon by the appellants in the proceedings against them. They succeeded before the Commissioner. The Tribunal does not make any reference to all this and does not deem it necessary to consider the arguments based on its earlier orders. These orders were stated to be final. Yet, the Tribunal omits to consider them. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Bhate that though the assessee cited before the Tribunal the decision in its own case or rather in the case of M/s. Merk Specialities Pvt. Ltd. or M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd., the judgment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing in reasoning and precision are passed day in and day out. We do not know where the fault lies. It is either in the process of selection and appointment or because there is no review and appraisal of the performance of the Tribunal Members from time to time. Whatever may be the cause, the outcome is rendering decisions which leave everything incomplete. Such unsatisfactory state of affairs need to be now brought to the notice of all concerned including the appointing authorities. 20. In the light of the above, we are required to quash and set aside both orders of the Tribunal. The Appeal succeeds. The order passed by the Tribunal on 28th March, 2014 and 12th September, 2014 both are quashed and set aside. The Revenue's appeal now shall be reheard by the Tribunal on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by its earlier conclusions. 21. The Tribunal must render a decision after dealing with all the contentions which have been raised by the parties. It should permit the appellants to rely upon the earlier adjudication and also bring to its notice the factual matrix involved therein. It must also allow the assessee an opportunity to rely upon the legal provisions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bon products separating at different levels of distillation and the process is much complex as those involves products of volatile nature. In the process under present reference, no different hydrocarbon products were being separated and the process undertaken was a purification of the products received and such purity levels were required if the goods were to be used for chromatography or cleaning/ degreasing in laboratory applications. It is therefore quiet evident that the process undertaken do not give rise to any different products with different character, identity or marketability, was merely just a simple purification of the materials received. The point regarding the change of classification as raised by department does not hold goods as there is no change in material characteristics and specifications. Hexane remains Hexane and Petroleum Benzene remains Petroleum Benzene. The change is only in the purity of the material." e. On perusal of the process undertaken by Merck, it is clear that in their case also the process undertaken were like treatment with acid, washing with water etc. After consideration of the above processes, adjudicating Assistant Commissioner passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 162 (SC)] b. CoromandalProdorite Pvt Ltd vs GOI [1985 (20) ELT 257 (Mad) ] c. Tata Exports Ltd. Vs UOI 1985 (22) ELT 732 (MP)] j. Since there is no change in name, character and use there is no manufacture and hence the appeal filed by revenue needs to be dismissed. k. The physical properties and chemical properties of the goods before and after purification remain the same and hence the process undertaken do not amount to manufacture. It is also a settled law that classification follows manufacture and mere existence of tariff entry would not mean that the activity would amount to manufacture. i. Moti Laminates Vs CCE [1995 (76) ELT 241 (SC)] ii. CCE Vs Aldee Corporation [2005 (188) ELT 241 (SC)] iii. CCE Vs Markfed Vanaspati [2003 (1530 elt 491 (SC)] iv. Prabhat Sound Studios Vs Addl CCE [1996 (88) ELT 635 (SC)] l. Purified versions can also be used for the purposes for which Hexane and Petroleum Ether received from Merck can be used. m. Department has in the Notice not alleged that the activity of repacking the goods would amount to manufacture in terms of Note 4 to Chapter 27. n. Value addition is irrelevant for determining, whether processes u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SC)] iv. Arti Electrodes Pvt Ltd Vs CCE [2009 (246) ELT 570 (T)] v. Laminated Packaging (P) Vs CCE [1990 (49) ELT 326 (SC)] vi. CCE vs Alok Enterprises [2010 (209) ELT 333 (Bom)] vii. Alok Enterprises vs CCE [2004 (178) ELT 550 (T)] viii. Suprajith Chemicals Pvt Limited vs CCE [2003 (156) ELT 712 (T)] ix. Air Liquide North India Pvt Ltd vs CCE [2011 (271) ELT 321 (SC)] 4.1 We have considered the submissions made on the behalf of party and also on behalf of revenue. The matter in case of Sunbel Alloys Co. Of India Ltd, has been remanded back by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as stated in para 2.3, supra. At the outset we would mention that both revenue and party's to appeals agree that issues involved in all the appeals are same and identical and these can be taken for decision together. 4.2 The party's have challenged the appeal filed by the revenue basically on the ground that the decision of tribunal in case of CCE Bombay Vs E.Merk (I) Ltd [Final Order No 995/98-C dated 12.10.1998 in Appeal No E/2617/94-C of 1994] has decided the issue of manufacture in their favour, and hence following the said order appeal of revenue needs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Chemicals reported in 1997 Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.95 has dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Since the appeal of the revenue against S D Fine Chemicals has been rejected, there is no merit in the Department's appeal and the foundation of the Department's appeal falls to the ground, in this view of the matter. As a result, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal." 3.2 From the above decision of the tribunal in the case of E Merck referred above, it is quite evident, that the appeal before the tribunal was singly on the ground that the department had preferred an appeal before the Apex Court in case of S D Fine Chemicals. By the time the matter was taken up for disposal, the appeal filed by the department in the case of S D Fine Chemicals had been dismissed by the Apex Court. Accordingly tribunal found that the ground on which appeal has been filed was no more, accordingly the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed. Thus it is seen that there was no consideration of any other issue, except the appeal filed by the revenue before the Apex Court in case of S D Fine Chemicals. Since the said app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Balasundaram, who heard the matter is not available, the Chairman of the Tribunal shall specify another Member for hearing this matter." 3.5 Thus the order of tribunal on which reliance has been placed by both Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeal) was in fact set aside and matter remanded for fresh reconsideration by the third member. The matter was reconsidered by the third member vide her order as reported in 1997 (91) ELT 610 (T) and after transmission of reconsidered view, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Apex Court. Since the appeal filed by the revenue in case of S D Fine Chemicals was dismissed, tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by revenue in case of E Merck. We are not going into the issue of dismissal of appeal by the tribunal in case of E Merck, but would point out that while in case of S D Fine Chemicals, third Member, had examined the issue in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in [1995 (3) SCR 84], no such examination has been done by any authority while deciding the case of E Merck. In view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan [2009 (237) ELT 225 (SC)] holding as follows the matter n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of the earlier pronouncement. Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view. This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision or where the earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are fetters only on a coordinate Bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction. A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer for review or an application for recall or under Article 32 in the peculiar circumstances mentioned in Hurra v. Hurra [2002 (4) SCC 388]. As we have said, overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question. No one can dispute that in our judicial system it is open to a court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited as an authority, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notes of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are also brought within the ambit of the definition. As has been repeatedly observed by the Court, though the principles enunciated are clear, it is their application that presents difficulties and it does not help to draw "any sharp or intrinsic distinction between 'processing' and 'manufacture', "which would only result in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present one" (Ujagar Prints). It would also be not right, as pointed out in Ujagar Prints to try to restrict the sweep of the definition with reference to Entry 84 List-I of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Since the constitutionality of the said definition has been repeatedly upheld with reference to both Entries 84 and 97 of List-I (Empire Industries and Ujagar Prints), the definition must be understood in terms it is couched. It should also be remembered that the question whether a particular process does or does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) is always a question of fact to be determined in the facts of a given case applying the principles enunciate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of the above observations, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Lalit that in the above case there was sufficient evidence on record to hold that after manufacture the goods were known in the market having distinct separate and identifiable function but there is no such evidence on record in the case in hand before us. We find no force in the above contention. Once we hold that the coating lamination and other process applied by the Company in its factory amounts to manufacture, new products come into being. It does not remain an ordinary kraft paper and as such it is liable to excise duty of 40% ad valorem as provided under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2). In the above Laminated Packings case, it was clearly held by process of lamination of kraft paper with polyethylene different goods come into being. Laminated kraft paper is distinct separate and different goods known in the market as such from the kraft paper." 3.8 The third member in case of S D Fine Chemical, has in her order reported in 1997 (91) ELT 610 (T) has held as follows:- "15.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy. Commercial Superintendent Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers -1980 (6) E.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st that is required to be applied is: does the processing of the original commodity being into existence a commercially different and distinct commodity? On an application of this test, it is clear that the blending of different qualities of one possessing differing chemical and physical composition so as to produce ore of the contractual specifications cannot be said to involve the process of manufacture, since the ore that is produced cannot be regarded as a commercially new and distinct commodity from the ore of different specifications blended together. The nature and extent of processing may vary from case to case; in one case the processing may be slight and in another it may be extensive, but with each process suffered the commodity would experience a change. Wherever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount to processing of the commodity. The nature and extent of the change is not material". 16. The test of manufacture laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd. and Ors. - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) is that a new ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tariff. It is an accepted and agreed position in the present case that the purification of chemicals is not included as a process of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act as it stood prior to 28-2-1986 nor is there any chapter note in any of the chapters treating purification of chemicals as amounting to manufacture. 19. As can be gathered, the key test is whether the commodity which is subjected to the process of manufacture can no longer be regarded as the original commodity. In my view in the instant case this test has not been satisfied as the chemicals prior to the two processes concerned herein continue to remain the same after being subjected to the processes, admittedly with only a change in increase in purity. The commodity retains its identity substantially through the processing stage. Therefore, it cannot be said to have been manufactured." 3.9 In case of CST Vs IOC [(1978) 41 STC 471 (BOM)], Bombay High Court has held - "2. The respondent is a dealer registered under the said Act. By an application dated 14th October, 1971, made under section 52(1) of the said Act, to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the respondent sought determination of the correct rate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of the Tribunal. 3. Clause (17) of section 2 of the said Act gives a very extended definition to the term "manufacture". The said clause reads thus : "'manufacture', with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating, or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed." 4. We have no doubt that in view of the said extended definition, the mixing of methonol with distilled water in exact proportions and subjecting the mixture to laboratory test as has been done in the present case by the respondent would be covered in the description of the term "manufacture", given in clause (17) of section 2 of the said Act. For example, mixing in such a manner would certainly amount to making the mixture or producing the mixture or treating methonol with water or adapting methonol for the use in question. The question which has to be really considered is whether such activity of mixing methonol with distilled water results in a commercially different commodity. As we have already held in Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat any new or different commercial commodity came into existence as a result of the process of handblending applied to the oil purchased by the respondent therein, whereas, in the present case, as we have already observed, the mixing carried out by the respondent has resulted in a new commercial commodity which is sold in the trade name of Methimix." 3.10 Another test applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the "Functional or user test." In the case of Atul Glass Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1986) 63 STC 322 (SC), the Apex Court at page 327 held as under: "The test commonly applied to such cases is : How is the product identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product? That is a test which is attracted whenever the statute does not contain any definition. Porritts& Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1978) 42 STC 433(SC). It is generally by its functional character that a product is so identified. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Macneill& Barry Ltd. (1986) 61 STC 76 (SC) : (1985) 2 SCALE 1093 (SC), this court expressed the view that ammonia paper and ferro paper, used for obtaining prints and sketches of site....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Reshma Organics, following paras, narrate the facts and understanding the of raw material and finished products by the appellants employees themselves. "3. Statement of Shri Devashish Anil Auddy, Director of M/s. ROCL, was recorded on 05.12.2005 and 16.06.2005 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 who stated, inter alia, that, • they were engaged in the business of distillation, rectification and repacking of laboratory regents for M/s. RFCL on job work basis; • M/s. RFCL were supplying all raw materials and packing materials to their factory gate; • depending on their requirement, the goods were manufactured from Hexane fraction of petroleum products which was first washed with sulphuric acid (3-4 times) and then washed with water till the same was rendered neutral to pH; • the said material was then rectified in the rectification column; the fraction below 60oC to 65oC was collected as Hexane's of HPCL and then the same was repacked in the consumer packs; • same process was being carried out for the various grades of Petroleum Ether 60-80; the products being distilled were for higher and refine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n it was cleared in the name of specific grades such as AR [Analytical Reagent], LR [Laboratory Reagent] and SG [Special Grade]; • more or less similar process was carried out to get the petroleum Ether 60-80 [Fraction from Hexane]; the grades are specified as per their use in the industry such as LR Grade is used as degreasing/cleaning of oily surface in the industries such as Pharma, injection manufacturing etc. • AR/SR Grade was used for CRO (Clinical Research Organization) purpose; HPCL Grade was used for High performance Liquid Chromatography instrument for analyzing purity and impurity profile of substances; it was used as a mobile phase in HPCL instrument." 4.3 Sunbel Alloys Company of India Ltd had filed an affidavit giving the details of processes undertaken by them along with the nature and character of the finished goods and raw material before the Bombay High Court. Said affidavit which contains all the details about the processes the products is reproduced below: 4.4 From the facts as stated by the employees of the party's and also as per the affidavit filed by appellants, the input raw material received by them is "Commercial Grade Bulk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision in the case of S.D. Fine Chemicals and E. Merck, this logic cannot be extended to petroleum products. The Petroleum products like gasoline, Kerosene etc. are produced through the process of purification of crude oil, but by no stretch of imagination can it be said that this process does not amount to manufacture. So far as the instant case is concerned, M/s. ROCPL have contended that the product received by them from M/s. RFCL was Hexane Ordinary Grade, which they subjected to certain processes to produce Hexane AR, Hexane LR, Hexane SG, Hexane HPLC and Petroleum Ether 60-90. It is observed that Hexane is an alkane hydrocarbon with chemical formula CH3 (CH2)4CH3(=C6 H14), whereas, Petroleum Ether is a totally different product which is also known a Benzene. In fact, Petroleum Ether is a fraction of crude petroleum which comes out as a distillate which is intermediate between the lighter Naptha and the heavier Kerosene. It is, in fact a mixture of different Alkanes like pentane Hexane and Heptanes. Thus, what M/s. ROCPL are doing in the factory premises is fractional distillation to further separate different fraction of input raw materials. Different fractions of petroleum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen a person or industry need a chemical or product for specific purpose that the person or industry will go for its use. I find that the value of commercial grade is enhanced by turning them into specialized grades on job work basis and therefore there is value addition. I further find that the specialized grardes are prepared by M/s. ROCPL for a separate use as seen in this case. It is an accepted fact that in the instant case there is value addition. In the case of Decorative Laminates (India Pvt. Ltd.) - 1996 (86) ELT 186, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'in deciding whether the processing in a given case amounts to manufacture or not, the relevant criteria are to what extent the value is added and whether the product is prepared for a separate use.' In view of all discussions as above, I hold that processes carried out by M/s. ROCPL on Hexane and Petroleum Ether supplied by M/s. RFCL amounts to manufacture and M/s. ROCPL were required to pay duties of excise during the relevant period." 4.5 Commissioner (Appeal) while concurring with the findings of the adjudicating authority has held as follows: "6. It is not disputed that the products of the appellants are of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. We enclose herewith the actual processes carried out for purification, grinding etc. as Annexure I. As will be seen from the said Annexure, we are not manufacturing any new product and the process of distillation is not that of fractional distillation so as to obtain different products from the original one which is subjected to the process of distillation. The processes of crystallisation and grinding are simple 4.2 processes and do not amount to process of `manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as explained hereinafter. The process of distillation consists of simple distillation and not fractional distillation. We submit that the process carried out on goods which are subjected to grinding, crystallisation of refinement does not amount to a process of `manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. .................. 10. Comparison of the process of manufacture in the SD case with the appellants would indicate some major differences. It may be noted that the appellants are chemically treating the inputs with 2% sodium carbonate solution to make it pH neutral. Further, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a receiver to collect the distillate. In heating a mixture of substances, the most volatile or the lowest boiling distills first, and the others subsequently or not at all. This simple apparatus is entirely satisfactory for the purification of a liquid containing nonvolatile material and is reasonably adequate for separating liquids of widely divergent boiling points. For laboratory use, the apparatus is commonly made of glass and connected with corks, rubber bungs, or ground-glass joints. For industrial applications, larger equipment of metal or ceramic is employed. A method called fractional distillation, or differential distillation, has been developed for certain applications, such as petroleum refining, because simple distillation is not efficient for separating liquids whose boiling points lie close to one another. In this operation the vapours from a distillation are repeatedly condensed and revaporized in an insulated vertical column. Especially important in this connection are the still heads, fractionating columns, and condensers that permit the return of some of the condensed vapour toward the still. The objective is to achieve the closest possible contact between ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have not undergone much change, is not in accordance with the test of manufacture, laid down by the various authorities discussed above. 4.10 In case of Suprajith Chemicals Pvt Ltd [2003 (156) ELT 712 (T)] it has been held as follows: "The question of manufacture under the Central Excise Act, has been settled with the definition of 'manufacture' being substituted with the introduction of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The new definition contains two clauses and instead of setting out the activities and procedures of different tariff items, clause (ii) of the substituted definition (specifies that any process which is specified in Section/Chapter notes of the schedule to the Tariff Act would amount to manufacture). This clause (ii) of the new definition, is too vast and when read with Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Act, 1985 would render no doubt that the processes undertaken by the appellants amount to manufacture. The Apex Court in the case of Empire Industries [1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.)] which was confirmed by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Ujagar Prints and Ors. [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held that any process creatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned order, "19. The assessee has not furnished any arguments on this except stating that the chapter note does not state that purification amounts to manufacture. No doubt the Chapter note does not state so, but I am of the firm view that the words "the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable shall amount to manufacture" are vide enough to cover the activity carried out by the assessee. The very fact that the goods were sent for purification shows that the goods were no longer usable and after purification they became usable. The very fact that the goods had to undergo purification further used, unambiguously reveals that the process of purification has rendered the goods marketable, thereby bringing the goods under the mischief of Chapter note describing manufacture. The argument that in the instant case the goods are not marketed or not brought to open market for sale is not relevant. The fact remains that the purified acetone and ethyl acetate can be bought and sold, and once this is so, it is immaterial that the goods sent for purification are returned after purification to the same customer and not marketed or not brought to open market for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not in dispute that the appellant had purchased Helium gas from the open market and that its quality control officer had conducted various tests and issued analysis report/quality test report stating the results of the tests carried out. It is also not in dispute that the appellant issued certificates of quality at the time of sale on the basis of tests carried out by it to the effect that the gas supplied by it confirmed a level of purity and specifications in conformation with the orders of the customers. Another undisputed fact is that the appellant had purchased Helium gas under a generic description but after the tests and analysis, it was sold to different customers based on their specific requirements at profit margin ranging from 40% to 60% in different cylinders. 11.It is pertinent to note that when the appellant was asked about the process which was being carried out on Helium gas before selling it to its customers, the representative of the appellant had refused to give any detail with regard to the process because, according to him, that process was a trade secret and he would not like to reveal the same. Thus, the respondent or his subordinate authorities were not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was so high. The appellant had supplied the gas not as such and under the grade and style of the original manufacturer but under its own grade and standard. Further, while selling the gas, different cylinders were given separate certificates with regard to the pressure, moisture, purification and quality of the gas. This explains the high price at which the appellant was selling the gas. 15.Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly observed that if no treatment was given to the gas purchased by the appellant, customers of the appellant would not have been purchasing Helium from the appellant at a price 40% to 60% above the price at which the appellant was purchasing. 16.As stated hereinabove, it is clear that the appellant was purchasing Helium at the rate of Rs. 520/- per Cum. and was selling the same after adding 40% to 60% profit. Further, the gas was segregated in different cylinders with different properties and, therefore, the rate at which the gas was purchased by the appellant and the rate at which it was sold to its customers was substantially different. 17.In the circumstances, it cannot be said that no treatment was given to the gas purchased by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity." 4.12 In view of categorical finding, that as result of the processes undertaken by the party's on the raw material viz Commercial Grade Bulk Hexane/ Petroleum Ether (Benzine), a new commercially identifiable product having separate name, character and use has emerged we hold that the processes undertaken are processes of manufacture. 4.13 In their submissions party's have relied upon various decisions and authorities. Since none of the said authority/ decision has laid down the any test of manufacture which is contrary to the test of emergence of distinct commercial commodity with distinct name, character and use we are not discussing those authorities separately. Also appellants have stated that raw material received by them could have also been used for the purposes for which the finished product is used. Such a submission is not borne out by the evidences and not tenable. Adjudicating authority has dealt with said argument in his order. We do not find any reason to differ from the same. 5.1 Tribunal has while deciding the issue in case of Merck Specialities Pvt Ltd./ Sunbel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is otherwise admissible to the party's. Accordingly we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-computation of the duty demand within the normal period and also for allowing CENVAT credit of duty paid on raw materials, subject to submission of documentary evidences. Party's will also be liable to pay interest on the recomputed demand. 6.0 Appeals are disposed of by way of remand in the above terms. (Pronounced in court on 19.11.2018) ============= Document 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2014 Sunbel Alloys Co. of India Ltd. Versus Appellants The Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur ...Respondent AFFIDAVIT I, Dr. Rajendra Pawar [M.Sc., Ph.D. (Chemistry)], Indian inhabitant having my office at Shivsagar Estate-A, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:- 1. 2. 3. I state and say that I am the Authorised Signatory of the Appellants. I have perused the papers and proceedings of the above Central Excise Appeal and have made myself fully conversant with the facts of the case. The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cification of commercial grade of Petroleum Benzine sent by Merck. Hereto marked & annexed as Exhibit "2" is illustrative copy of specification and test report showing specification of purified Petroleum Benzine returned to Merck. (II) Hexane fraction from petroleum: Hexane fraction from petroleum Raw Material received form Merck for Processing 1730RCMH.17830 Hexanes LiChrosolv Finished Product 1730RCMH. 1/17854 Article No. Water Content NMT 0.1% NMT 0.03% Non Volatile Substance Specification 1730RCMH17830(1) NMT 0.001% 617854(1) Improvement due to reduction in water content Improvement due to setting strict limit to Non Volatile Substance Refer to Exhibit "C" & Exhibit "D" Hereto marked & annexed as Exhibit "3" is illustrative copy of specification and test report showing specification of commercial grade of Hexane sent by Merck. Hereto marked & annexed as Exhibit "4" is illustrative copy of specification and test report showing specification of purified Hexane returned to Merck. 6. I state & say that the above table would show that the physical properties of ....