TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case are that the respondent is inter alia engaged in the sale of various products that are classifiable under Chapters 32,38,39 and 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 (CETA). 2.1 The respondent inter alia purchased duty paid "Styrofan ID 604" and "Apcotex TSN 400", which are Styrene Butadiene Latex falling under Chapter Heading 40.02 of the CETA, from M/s BASF India Limited and Apcotex Industries Ltd., respectively. 2.2 Apart from the above, the respondent also purchased duty paid "Navdeecide-91" which is an Organic Bromine Biocide (preservative) falling under the Chapter Heading 38.08 of the CETA, from M/s. Navdeep Chemicals Ltd. 2.3 In the instant case, the respondent merely diluted the Styrene Butadiene Latex w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same shall not amount to manufacture. 2.8 Thereafter, the Department issued 11 SCNs covering the underlying period of April 2007 to September 2015 seeking demand of excise duty amounting to Rs.10,81,44,684/-under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AB of the said Act and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 on the ground that the dilution and subsequent addition of preservatives to styrene butadiene latex and thereafter packaging the same in small containers amounts to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 38 of CETA. It was also alleged that final products were classifiable under tariff heading 3824 4010 and not 4002 1100. 2.9 The Respondent filed a detailed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Versus M/s. Sika India Pvt. Ltd., 2017 (7) TMI 715 - CESTAT KOLKATA, the present appeal of the department is not maintainable. She further submits that similar view was also taken by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, 2019 (5) TMI 935 - CESTAT MUMBAI. 3.1 She further submits that the department has not filed any appeal against the aforesaid orders passed by this Tribunal as well as the Mumbai Tribunal. She, therefore, submits that due to the absence of any challenge, the aforementioned orders have attained finality. It is a settled law that the once the department accepts a particular legal position in an assessee's case, then, for the same issue for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder : "8. The only point of dispute is whether or not the respondent carried out activities which will amount to manufacture in terms of provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. The main emphasis by the Revenue in the present appeal is the products cleared by the respondent are having different name, identity and use. In this connection we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle to understand the scope of term manufacture for the Central Excise purpose in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd. [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.)]. The Apex Court held that there must be a transformation, a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. Applying the prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts that have come into surface now from clarifications and evidence advanced in the defence submissions. The test report of the NATIONAL TEST HOUSE is another confirmatory verdict that goes to prove that there is virtually no emergence of a new product at the hands of the Noticee. Considering the facts discussed above, alongwith other evidences of earlier test reports and records of due intimations made by the assessee/ Noticee to the department from time to time on the goods in question- I find the facts on record go to justify the defence stand as fully acceptable. It is not the revenue's case that the Noticee purchased the goods viz., Styrofan & Apcotex without payment of duty or, they in any manner failed to account for any manufac....