9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T manufactured by the appellants (to be referred to hereinafter as HPC) was excisable, during the material period, having regard to the definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act.). HPC s contention before the Assistant Collector was that EMULSIFIER T was an intermediate product obtained in a continuous process and that it was not a finished product. This contention did not find favour with the Assistant Collector and he held that the product was excisable and fell under Item No. 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (C.E.T., for short). The appeal against this order was rejected by the Appellate Collector. It is this order of the Appellate Collector tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable under Item No. 15AA, setting aside the Appellate Collector s order with consequential relief to HPC. 4. The appeal was heard on 25-10-1983. Shri D.P. Bhave, on behalf of HPC, besides reiterating the aforesaid submissions, contended that - (i) For years together, since 1966, the Department did not tax the product under Item 15AA CET though HPC had disclosed the fact of manufacture of the product to the Department again on 1-12-1972. The Department did not take any objection. (ii) The product was an intermediate one arising in the course of manufacture of speciality oils. (iii) It was produced only for captive consumption and not for sale. The product was not goods . (iv) The full text of the test report was not disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited as also 1978 E.L.T. p. 1. (iii) Emulsifiers were Organic Surface Active Agents. The question whether manufacture was involved in the production of EMULSIFIER T was, therefore, irrelevant. (iv) Notification No. 101/66 was, like all statutory notifications, to be read as part of the statute. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. (i) In his letter dated 12-8-1976 to the HPC, the Superintendent of Central Excise has referred to the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist to the effect that the surface active tension of Emulsifier T was more than 20 dynes. This seems to be the basis of the Department s holding that the product fell under Item 15AA, CET. (ii) HPC seems to have asked for a re-test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... At page 986, it says - surface-active agent - (surfactant). Any compound that reduces surface tension when dissolved in water or water solutions, or which reduces interfacial tension between two liquids, or between a liquid and a solid . There are three categories of surface active agents; detergent, wetting agents and emulsifiers...... 8. HPC s case is not that the product is not an emulsifier but that it is not known or marketed as an organic surface active agent, that it is not goods and that the production process does not amount to manufacture . We have, in the circumstances, to go on the basis that the subject product was an emulsifier, as its very name indicates. HPC s contention that it is an intermediate product and doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in the matter of levy of excise duty, the notion of trade or commerce cannot be imported. 10. We have thus seen that the subject goods are Organic Surface Active Agents, falling under Item No. 15AA of the CET, that the question of manufacture is not relevant and that the goods do not cease to be liable to excise duty on the ground that they are produced not for sale but for captive consumption. In this view of the matter, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills case, - 1977 E.L.T. J 199 and South Bihar Sugar Mills case, - (1968 AIR 922) has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
