2024 (5) TMI 799 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of Central Excise Duty - product of the appellant namely Sulphur 90% WG with the brand name of CosavetFertis is a manufactured goods or not - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of C.C. E-BHARUCH VERSUS SULPHUR MILLS LTD 2022 (10) TMI 732 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that The nature and composition of the materials (including Sulphur 99%) procured and used by the Respondent are the same the process undertaken and the chemicals added to Sulphur 99% are the same; the nature as well as composition and use of the products obtained by the Respondent i.e Casvet Fertis- WG are the same the structures of Chapter 25, 38 and 31 of tariff are also the same and most importantly there is no change in definition of manufacture and excisable goods under the Central Excise Act nor it is there any new pronouncement of a Judicial or quasi-judicial forum affecting the concepts of manufacture or that of excisable goods or classification. The impugned order is upheld - Revenue s appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of whether the product "Sulphur-90% WG" with the brand name "CosavetFertis" is a manufactured goods and liable to duty.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Restoration of Appeal No. E/12064/2016:
The Revenue filed two appeals against a common order, one of which was disposed of under SVLDRS-2019 but later restored by the Tribunal due to a mistake. The other appeal against the same order was dismissed. The present appeal was taken up for disposal.

Issue 2: Classification of Product and Liability to Duty:
The product "Sulphur-90% WG" was observed to be used as fertilizer and classified under different sub-headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue contended that the product was different from raw Sulphur and should be liable for duty. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the nature, composition, and use of the products remained the same, and there was no change in the definition of "manufacture" or "excisable goods." The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner in dropping the demand for central excise duty, citing judicial discipline and previous decisions.

Conclusion:
Based on previous Tribunal orders and judicial principles, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was made in line with the principle that when an issue is decided and accepted by the parties, it cannot be contested again in a subsequent case. The impugned order was found to be in order, and the demand for duty did not sustain.