1991 (6) TMI 124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process of purification of chemicals by recrystallisation and distillation amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the resultant purified chemicals are commercially distinct from the original raw materials.

Summary:

Issue 1: Process of Purification as Manufacture

The appellants manufactured chemical laboratory and fine chemicals, engaging in activities such as recrystallisation and distillation for purification. They claimed these processes did not constitute manufacture and sought exemption under Notification 77/83. The Assistant Collector initially agreed, stating that purification processes do not alter the chemical formula, thus not amounting to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. This decision was based on opinions from the National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, which defined manufacture as involving chemical reactions that change raw materials into finished products. The Collector (Appeals) later reversed this, arguing that the purified products had distinct identities and uses, thus constituting manufacture.

Issue 2: Commercial Distinction of Purified Chemicals

The appellants contended that the purification processes only marginally increased the purity of already high-quality chemicals, without changing their chemical identity. They referenced CEGAT decisions, such as CCE, Aurangabad v. Anil Chemicals, which held that improving purity does not constitute manufacture if the resultant product remains the same chemically. The Tribunal, in this case, agreed, noting that the purified chemicals retained their original names and chemical formulas, thus not creating new excisable goods.

Majority Decision:

The Tribunal concluded that the processes of recrystallisation and distillation did not amount to manufacture as defined u/s 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The majority held that the purified chemicals were not commercially distinct from the raw materials, as their chemical identity remained unchanged. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Separate Judgment:

Member (J) S.L. Peeran dissented, arguing that the purification processes resulted in commercially distinct products with different names, characters, and uses, thus constituting manufacture. This view was not upheld by the majority.