9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct manufactured by the respondent is a diluted form of insecticide which will only kill small insects like mosquitoes. There is no new substance which is created. The petitioner if it wanted to include dilution of insecticide within the meaning of manufacture could have made specific provision in this regard in section itself or in the chapter notes of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the absence of any such notes the mere process of diluting the alletherin by adding non-reactant substance cannot amount to manufacture. All that is being done is that the potency of the insecticide is being reduced. This cannot be termed to be manufacture. Question referred is answered against the petitioner - 2 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 26- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and DHT as stabilizing agent. The question which arises is whether the addition of stabilizing agent, masking agent etc. is manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) quoted hereinabove. 4. The adjudicating authority held that both the concentrated alletherin used by the party and the diluted alletherin fall under the same sub-heading and there is no process of manufacture. The Department filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the same. Thereafter, the Department filed and another appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which also dismissed the same relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Markfed Agro Chemicals, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 848. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssan Chemicals v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 648, wherein the Delhi High Court held as follows : "6. The learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to assail the settled position of law that the Board cannot merely issue a circular which will render the decision of the Tribunal as irrelevant and nugatory. It is, however, argued that the respondents did not file appeal against the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in many cases where the subject matter of Excise Duty involved was not substantial. The Counsel have further referred to the departmental communication, dated 13th January, 1993 from Ministry of Finance to various Collectors of Central Excise filed as Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excise authorities had accepted and not challenged the judgment in Markfed's case, they could not in another case issue circular and take contrary view. 9. In addition thereto we find that in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199) (S.C.), the Apex Court while dealing with the definition of manufacture held as follows: "19. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that by inserting this definition of the word "manufacture" in S. 2(f) the legislature intended to equate "processing" to "manufacture" and intended to make mere "processing" as distinct from "manufacture" in the sense of bringing into existence of a new substance known to the market, liable to duty The sole purpose of insert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
