9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of liquid mixtures emerge at different stages of fractional distillation process. Such components arising in course of fractional distillation process can be distinctly different from the parent raw materials. The emergent products can have different name, character and use. However, the processes of recrystalisation and distillation undertaken by the Appellant cannot be called fractional distillation. There is no evidence available on record to show that various components of liquid mixtures emerged at different stages in the process undertaken by the Appellant - the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is not supported by any evidence. It is also observed that the appellant did not avail MODVAT Credit as per the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er after setting aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner on 11.07.2002. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether the process undertaken by the Appellant amounts to manufacture and whether the Appellant is eligible for the SSI benefit . The amount involved is Rs.89,06,036/- with interest and equivalent amount of penalty and fine of Rs.1,40,000/-The Period involved in the dispute is November 1987 to February 1994. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in undertaking the processing of Coal Tars, Solvent Naptha, Tar Acid, Light Creosote Oil, Napthalene, Althrecene Oil etc. falling under chapter Sub-heading Nos. 3814.00, 2706.00, 2907.90, 2707-60 and 2707.40 of the Central Excise Tariff A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istillates viz. Solvent, Naptha, Light/Heavy Creosote Oil, Anthracene Oils etc. are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.298/86 dated 13.05.1986. The appellant did not avail MODVAT Credit as per the decision of the Department that their processing of Coal Tar does not amount to manufacture. 6. First Show Cause Notice was issued by the Department on 19.08.1992 for the period from 01.04.1991 to 22.02.1992 alleging that the processes undertaken by the Appellant amounted to manufacture . The second Show Cause Notice was issued on 13.10.1992 for the period 01.11.1987 to 18.09.1992 excluding the period 01.04.1991 to 21.02.1992 on the basis of production and clearance value on average basis during the financial years 1987-88, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to manufacture even if it is considered as fractional distillation. They also contended that the demand was barred by limitation. The SSI exemption notification as amended would also applicable to them. 9. In denove adjudication, the Ld Commissioner confirmed the demands again vide Order-in-Original dated 14.05.2009. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Appellant is before us. 10. In their submissions, the Appellant stated that the decision in Appellant s own case has been wrongly interpreted by Commissioner. The Appellant stated that they undertook the process of recrystalisation and distillation and the resultant goods were given different numbers like GR-101, GR-4546 etc. But, these processes did not bring in any new p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d distillation undertaken by the Appellant cannot be called fractional distillation. There is no evidence available on record to show that various components of liquid mixtures emerged at different stages in the process undertaken by the Appellant. Just because different names have been given to sell the goods in the market, it cannot be said that the Appellant has undertaken the process of fractional distillation which amounts to manufacture . In fact, the officers of the Department tested the chemicals and the finished products and found that no new product came into existence and accordingly held that the process undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. Later, the Central excise authorities cancelled the C.T.- 2 Licence vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f processing of raw materials, without any evidence to substantiate that claim. The Appellant contended that they undertook the same processes as carried out in their factory at Baroda and the Tribunal in respect of that unit concluded that the processes undertaken them did not amount to manufacture . The gist of the order is reproduced below: Manufacture - Solvent CIX subjected to distillation and purification process does not give rise to any new product with a known chemical formula - Process not amounting to manufacture - Section 2(f) of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. We find no valid reason to ignore the above cited decision in the Appellant s own case in respect of their unit at Baroda, where the Appellant undertook similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
