Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Indiana Chem-Port And Ors. vs Cce on 16 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(117)ECR610(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
1. The common issue arising for determination in all these appeals is whether the process of purification of chemicals bought out from the market results in manufacture of new excisable commodity liable to excise duty.
2. We have heard both sides. The duty paid inorganic/organic compound purchased by the appellants herein from the market contains impurities which are removed by the appellants by the process of distillation, crystallization, solvent extraction, filtration etc. and nothing comes out from the record as to what new product is alleged to have arisen as a result of the above mentioned process. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in the case of S.D. Fine Chem (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (91) ELT 610 (T) holding that purification of bought out chemicals through distillation or recrystallization does not amount to manufacture for the reason that marginal purification of chemicals does not result in a new commercial commodity having a distinct name, character or use, is directly applicable to the present case. In the case of Allipo Chemicals v. CC & CE, Final Order No. 1006/98-C dated 25.9.1998 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the issue is to re-examined after examining the manufacturing process, is distinguishable as in that case the Tribunal held that a new product had emerged by purification of an ordinary grade chemical to I.P. grade chemical, while there is no allegation in the present case that what emerged as a result of the purification, was I.P. grade chemical. We, therefore, hold there was no warrant for the Commissioner (Appeals) to have remanded the cases and set aside the impugned order following the Tribunal order and allow the appeals.
(Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open court on 16.9.2004.)