2019 (4) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounting to manufacture - respondent herein mixes bitumen with polymers and additives which is used for asphalting National High Way - Held that - Hon ble Apex Court in the judgement of A ONE LAMINATORS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2011 (7) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT were considering the very same issue in respect of very same assessee. Since the matter has already attained finality in the hands of the Apex Court, there is no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty on products manufactured by the respondent.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved a case where the Revenue appealed against Order-in-Original No. 57-2008 regarding the demand of duty on products manufactured by the respondent. The issue revolved around the respondent mixing bitumen with polymers and additives for asphalting National High Way. The Revenue contended that this process amounted to manufacturing, necessitating the payment of central excise duty. However, the respondent argued that a previous decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had established that such mixing did not constitute manufacturing. The respondent's counsel pointed out that the same issue had been settled in favor of the appellant in a previous case decided by the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the Apex Court had already ruled on the same issue involving the same assessee, concluding that the matter had attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In this case, the primary issue was whether mixing bitumen with polymers and additives for asphalting National High Way constituted manufacturing and required the payment of central excise duty. The respondent argued that a previous judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had determined that such mixing did not amount to manufacturing. The respondent's counsel highlighted a similar decision by the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in favor of the appellant, further supporting their position. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions, recognized that the Apex Court had already addressed the identical issue involving the same assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appeal.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that when an issue has been conclusively settled by the Apex Court in a previous judgment involving the same party, there is no need to re-litigate the matter. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of whether mixing bitumen with polymers and additives amounts to manufacturing had already been adjudicated by the Apex Court. By applying the precedent set by the Apex Court and considering the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the matter had been resolved and there was no justification for the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.