TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (10) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise Rules. 2.Their unit was visited by the jurisdictional Excise Officers. After studying the processes and after recording statements of the employees of the unit, show cause notice was issued alleging that the products of the Appellants were classifiable under Heading 2001.10. It was claimed that duty of Rs. 40,92,741/- was evaded by the present Appellants. This duty was sought to be confirmed and penalties were sought to be imposed. Confiscation of seized stocks and the machinery used for manufacture were also alleged in the said notice. 3.After hearing the assessee the Commissioner passed Orders confirming the duty demand, imposing penalties and ordering confiscation but permitting redemption. This Order is now in challenge before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199)] and the subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Fine Chemicals 1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 in which the review was made of several judgments pronounced following the first cited judgment. 6.The definition of 'manufacture' as given in the Act is an expansive one in as much that it includes processes ancillary to the process of manufacture also, at the same time not defining the phrase 'manufacture'. This peculiar situation has given rise to a number of disputes. What is required in each case is to study the process and also the change brought out by the process in the particular goods. Then the conclusion must be drawn whether the changes would give rise to a new commodity commercially so known ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judgment in the case of CST v. Bombay Traders (Sales Tax Cases 38, Page 236). We shall deal with these two Judgments. 8.In the first cited case M/s. Kalaivani Fabrics had exported blanched and roasted peanuts in bulk. No export duty was leviable on goods of this description. However, export duty was leviable on groundnut kernels. The Customs treated the roasted peanuts as groundnut kernels and charged duty. M/s. Kalaivani Fabrics then approached the Madras High Court claiming the classification to be wrong and also claiming that the Tribunal having earlier held that roasted peanuts would be classified as shelled peanuts, there was no purpose in filing appeal against this order before the Tribunal. In this background the Writ Petition wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commodities. It was held that the definition of 'manufacture' made vide Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 did not cover the activity of frying and spicing. The Hon'ble High Court answered the reference by holding that the finding of the Tribunal as to 'manufacture' was correct. The Court observed that essentially it is a question of fact and the Tribunal's findings could not be faulted. 11.The Counsel for the appellants submitted that this Tribunal being under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court was bound by this judgment in preference to any other decision of any other High Court. 12.Prima facie it appears that the 2 Judgments lay down different law where the activity concerned was similar. However, on closer exa....