9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 732 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - Classification of goods - Sulphur 90% WG with the brand name of CosavetFertis, which is said to be used as fertilizer - respondent has classified the said products under Sub-heading 24030090 of 1st schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period up to 27.12.2013 and thereafter under Sub-heading 25030010 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - whether the process of the resultant product Sulphur-90% WG with the brand name of CosavetFertis from sulphur may be held amounting to manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944? 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. In another decision of the Apex Court in JAYASWALS NECO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 2006 (1) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT , it has been observed as As the inserts did not require any precision machining and, therefore the inserts produced by the assessees were entitled to the exemption provided in Notification No. 223/88-C.E. The impugned order is absolutely in order and there are no infirmity therein - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
Issues:
Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, whether manufacturing process amounts to manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, applicability of Central Excise Duty, time bar on demands, judicial discipline in following previous decisions. Analysis: 1. Classification of Product: The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of a product named Sulphur-90% WG marketed as "CosavetFertis" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that the product was different from the input raw Sulphur and should be chargeable to Central Excise Duty. The respondent had cleared the product under NIL rate of duty, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice. 2. Manufacturing Process: The main issue revolved around whether the process undertaken by the respondent amounted to "manufacture" under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Revenue argued that the product emerged as a distinct commodity through a series of processes and should be subject to appropriate tax liability. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the product was the same as previously decided by the Tribunal and should not be liable for Central Excise Duty. 3. Applicability of Central Excise Duty: The arguments presented by both sides focused on the interpretation of the term "manufacture" and whether the resulting product was identifiable as a different commodity in the market. The Revenue sought confirmation of Central Excise Duty demands, while the respondent relied on previous Tribunal decisions and principles of judicial discipline to support their case for dropping the demand. 4. Time Bar on Demands: Additionally, the respondent raised the issue of time-barring certain demands raised in the show cause notice, contending that the demands for the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 were issued beyond the normal prescribed period. 5. Judicial Discipline: The Tribunal considered the previous decision on the same issue involving the respondent and emphasized the importance of judicial discipline in following earlier judgments. The Tribunal highlighted that when an issue has been decided and accepted by the parties, it should not be contested again, citing relevant judgments to support this principle. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and emphasizing the importance of consistency in decision-making based on previous rulings. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to judicial discipline and not allowing the Revenue to take a different stand on identical issues previously decided.
|
