9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lted out for ease of transportation and storage. Prior to 20-3-1990 solubilised dyes were exempted from duty made of duty paid formulated dyes by notification 180/61. The respondent prior to this stage therefore paid duty on the standardised formulated prepared ready to use dyes which it manufactured from its factory being formulated and unformulated unprepared dyes, but did not pay duty on arlindone. The exemption was rescinded on 30-3-1990. Thereafter the respondent did not pay duty on arlindone on the ground that the process of conversion of standardised, formulated and prepared ready to use dyes into the solubilised dyes did not amount to manufacture. He said that no excisable product came into existence when the produce made soluble. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals). We are unable to understand the emphasise that the departmental representative placed upon a fact that there was integrated process of manufacture. This has not been demonstrated by evidence. The fact that a manufacturer has a particular raw material as a starting point and manufactures finished product in the course of which another finished product emerges does not itself makes the process integrated. There was no such a nexus. The process may be said to be integrated if there was a continuous process involved. In that case intermediate product itself would not emerge as such. In the case before us, however, the respondent cleared some of the standardized formulated dyes into the market. It is therefore not possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption notification is entirely irrelevant. The appeal has not cast on any doubt on the credence of the finding of the Assistant Collector or Commissioner (Appeals) that the process of conversion of the standardized dyes into ready to use vat dyes by the respondent was a simple one of dilution and did not amount to manufacture. 6. The departmental representative and the respondent in their written submission places reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in Arlab Ltd. v CCE, 1992 (62) E.L.T. 599 (Tribunal) = 1993 (45) ECR 321. In this decision obviously relating to the same assessee, the Tribunal had laid down three propositions, out of which we are not concerned with the third. The first is that the process of conversion of duty pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tandardised and unformulated and unprepared forms into formulated standardised and prepared forms shall amount to manufacture is of no help. It is the process that the respondent undertook which resulted into the product on which it paid duty. The subsequent process, as we have noted has been found only to be simple dilution and this finding is not challenged by any evidence. It is to be noted that all these arguments raised before us are not incorporated in the show-cause notice. Notice to show cause had not in fact indicated any reason as to product should pay duty except that on notification 180/61 bieng rescinded duty was payable on this product. In other words, no material in the notice form basis for the departmental representative s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
