1998 (3) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the question of 'manufacture' can be raised at the Tribunal stage.
2. Whether conversion of dyes into paste amounts to manufacture.
3. Whether the matter should be remanded to consider the question of manufacture.
4. Whether the point raised was entirely new or had been raised at the original stage.

Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the order demanding duty and imposing a penalty. The main issue was the clubbing of clearances by different firms. The question of dutiability of the products, specifically pigment paste, was raised for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The Tribunal has discretion under Rule 10 to allow additional grounds. The Tribunal held that a question of law can be raised at any stage, especially when it goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal rejected objections and proceeded to hear submissions on the 'manufacture' of the product.

2. The appellants argued that pigment paste is a semi-fluid form of pigment powder, involving no process of manufacture. They relied on precedents where conversion of dyes into paste was not considered as manufacture. The Tribunal accepted the plea for reconsideration as the issue of manufacture was fundamental. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to determine if the product qualified as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the authority to consider the manufacture question de novo and pass an appealable order after hearing both parties. The decision was based on the significance of the 'manufacture' issue in the case.

4. Another judge noted that the issue of manufacture had been raised by the appellants at the original stage, as reflected in the order-in-original. Since the point was not entirely new and had been raised earlier, the Collector should have addressed it before proceeding. The matter was required to be remanded for proper consideration. The judge emphasized that the nature of the process should result in the creation of a new commodity with distinct characteristics to be considered as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) and relevant case law. The Collector was instructed to provide appellants with a hearing and issue a detailed order.