Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (10) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 94 (50) ECR 36 (Tribunal). The Tribunal in this detailed majority order held that the process of manufacture carried on by the appellants does, not bring into existence new product and the product which has been emerged is not excisable and dutiable. The Tribunal had considered all the evidence on record including the test of marketability and excisability. Ibis judgment has been accepted by the Revenue and not appealed by the Revenue. In the present case, this judgment has not been accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut, on the ground that the item is required to be considered as dutiable as the ingredients and the final product are different. However, various Commissioners of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, Chennai, Trichir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal 1997 (90) ELT 411, that all the ingredients for conversion of a product (claimed as formulated, standardized and prepared) were present with the addition of diluents by which the product becomes formulated standardized and prepared and the process was held to be the process of manufacture as per Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 32. In the assessee's own case reported in 1994 (50) ECR 36 (T) it was held that in terms of Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 32 when applied to the process by which Ujala is manufactured it cannot be said that a process of manufacture as envisaged in the Chapter note has taken place, and hence it is to be concluded that no process of manufacture has taken place. From the above, it can be seen that the decision of the Hon'b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mbers had just opposing views, the view of the third member is entirely different as it is based on chapter note 6 of chapter 32. This view has been overruled by the later decision of CEGAT. As already discussed in the previous paras, the principles of res judicata is not applicable here and hence department has every right to recover the duty." 2. The learned DR prays for taking a different view from the view already expressed by the Tribunal and submits that the appellants the put to terms. 3. This has seriously opposed by the learned Counsel. He submits that the Commissioner has shown disregard to the Tribunal's Order and has committed judicial indiscipline. He submits that the Commissioner ought to have accepted the order passed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he High Court and the Supreme Court The Tribunal's order is lengthy and a detailed one. This order was not appealed by the Revenue and the same was accepted as noted supra. The Commissioners of Bhubaneshwar, Chennai, Trichirapalli and Bolpur has initiated proceedings on the ground that the impugned product is different one and dutiable. They passed the Orders-in-Original No. CCE/BBSR-1/25/2001 dated 27.9.2001; 1 & 2/2002 dated 31.1.2002; 25/2002 dated 28.7.2002; 22/2000 dated 29.11.2000 and 06/Comm/BOL/03 dated 22.5.2003 respectively. All the Commissioners have accepted the Tribunal ruling and dropped the proceedings. We have to express our pain and anguish in the manner in which the matter was dealt by the Commissioner in the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 266 (S.C.); and Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) ELT 142 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that if no appeal is filed against an earlier order or the earlier appeal involving the identical issue was not pressed by the revenue, the revenue is not entitled to press the other appeals involving the same question. In Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra), this Court observed as follows: "In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving identical issue was not pressed and was, therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates