TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the appellant namely Sulphur - 90% WG with the brand name of "CosavetFertis" is a manufactured goods and liable to duty or otherwise. The appeal No. E/12064/2016 was disposed as withdrawn vide final order No. A/10960/2021 dated 02.03.2021 under SVLDRS-2019 as per the list of cases including the said appeal was submitted by the Revenue. Latter on when the department realized the mistake that the case relates to appeal No. E/12064/2016 was not settled under SVLDRS-2019, they had filed application for rectification of mistake and restoration of appeal. Accordingly, this Tribunal vide miscellaneous order No. M/10212/2023 dated 21.09.2023 restored the appeal No. E/12064/2016 in its original number. Meanwhile when the appeal No. E/12064/2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Bharuch. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the during the course of audit , it was observed by the Audit team that respondent had manufactured a product namely Sulphur - 90% WG with the brand name of "CosavetFertis", which is said to be used as fertilizer. The respondent has classified the said products under Sub-heading 24030090 of 1st schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period up to 27.12.2013 and thereafter under Sub-heading 25030010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent had made clearances of the said products under NIL rate of duty, in both the situations. As per the revenue the product Sulphur-90WG manufactured and cleared by the respondent is different from the input raw Sulphur. This pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the process undertaken by the assessee is amounting to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and assessee is liable to discharge appropriate tax liability on the resultant product. Ld. Commissioner remained silent on the issue of "amounting to manufacture" and decided the case solely on the basis of Hon‟ble CESTAT Order No. A/1240-1243/2012-WZB/AHD dtd. 06.08.2012. 3.2 He also submits that it is settled position that even if the resultant goods belong to the same entry the fact that they are different identifiable goods known as such in the market, the event of manufacture occurs is dutiable. Further, there is no estoppels in taxation matter. He placed reliance on the case of Laminated Packings (P) L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE- 2005 (186) ELT 266(SC) (ii) CCE Vs. Jain Vanguard Polybuttene Ltd. - 2010 (256) ELT 523 (Bom) (iii) CCE Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. -2010(259)ELT 673 (AP) 4.2 He further argues that major demands as raised in show cause notice dated 07.10.2015 for the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 (upto September 2014) is time barred as issued beyond normal period as prescribed. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that whether the disputed goods liable to duty or not already decided by the Tribunal cited supra in the own case of the respondent. The nature and composition of the materials (including Sulphur 99%) proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctness in an another case. At this juncture, the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 213 (S.C.) (Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai v. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd.) is relevant to be quoted. Paragraphs 4 to 7 are usefully extracted hereunder :- 4. The Tribunal relying upon an earlier decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I v. Bitumen Products (India) - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 58 (T), held that „Bituminised Hessian based felt‟ is covered under Chapter Heading 59.09 as contended by the assessee and not under 68.07 as contended by the revenue. 5. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the earlier decision of the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well as the assessees in a quandary." 5.2 Similarly, in another decision of the Apex Court reported in 2007 (13) SCC 807 = 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.) (JayaswalsNeco Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur), it has been observed as follows :- "7. This Court in Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (6) SCC 95] relying upon an earlier decision of this Court, held that the Department having accepted the principles laid down in the earlier case cannot be permitted to take a contra stand in the subsequent cases. In para 5 of the said judgment it was observed, thus : (SCC p. 97) "5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take....