9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals as per the number of show cause notices. Now the practice has been changed to file the number of appeals as per the Orders-in-Original. As there is only one Order-in-Original, this appeal is taken up to be properly filed. 2. The department initiated proceedings against the respondents for levy of duty on the process of conversion of technical material into formulation on the ground that it amounts to manufacture and a new commercial commodity with separate identity comes into existence. The assessee had taken a view that dilution of the concentrated basic pesticidal chemicals did not bring into existence a process of manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and they were not classifiable under Chapter Sub-headi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the process carried out results only in the dilution rendering the item suitable for use either directly or after addition of water and so it did not constitute manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Subsequently, the Board issued a circular dated 27-7-1995 which is reported in 1995 (9) RLT M 85, wherein it was mentioned that the process such as the one carried out by the appellants herein would amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, and that the formulations would be classifiable under 30.08 of the Tariff. However, this was challenged before the Delhi High Court and the Board s circular cited above was set aside by the High Court vide case law reported in Ki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was a Board Circular and the Tribunal had also upheld the assessee s contention in the said case, i.e. Markfed Agro Chemicals (supra). The fact that the Board Circular was set aside and subsequent changes brought in the Chapter Note will have only prospective effect as it is a legislative change. All legislative changes cannot be considered as clarificatory and is required to be held as a new piece of legislation and intended to be operative from the date of passing of the legislation. Therefore, the contention raised that changes brought in the Budget and the assessee s process of manufacture have retrospective effect is required to be rejected. In that view of the mater, respectfully following the citation already noted supra, we find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
