Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kilpest India Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Cbec And Ors. on 4 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(63)ECR365(MP)
Author: A.K. Mathur
Bench: A.K. Mathur
ORDER
1. This L.P.A. has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.12.1995.
2. It is not necessary for us to go into detailed facts. Suffice it to say that the question which is seriously agitated before us is whether formulation of pesticides amounts to manufacturing process or not. Learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter and observed that the Appellate Authority shall consider the matter in detail about factual aspect in accordance with law and the learned Judge did not express any opinion on merits whether the mixing of chemicals for formulation of pesticides amounts to manufacture or not.
3. Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that in fact in the original petition, the petitioner has challenged the Circular (Annexure P-7) issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as to whether dilution of technical grade pesticides by addition of solvents would amount to manufacture or not in exercise of the power Under Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Learned Counsel submits that in fact by virtue of this Circular, all the Authorities are bound and it will not be proper to approach them because the whole issue has been pre-judged in the Circular Annexure P-7 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to a decision given by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and submitted that in view of the decision of the CEGAT and the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, there will be no scope for the subordinate authorities to objectively assess the situation.
4. We need not dilate on the merit part that formulation of pesticides amounts to manufacture or not, because it involves investigation of facts that will required leading necessary evidence by both sides. Therefore, this kind of dispute can not to be decided in the extraordinary jurisdiction. However, we leave it open to the Authorities to consider whatever evidence which is being led by the parties and objectively decide whether such formulation amounts to manufacture or not. The Authorities shall not take into consideration the order Annexure P-7 issued Under Section 37B of the Act while exercising their quasi-judicial functions. Suffice it to say that this circular should be read as a guideline and should not regulate the judicial discretion. Proviso to Section 37B of the Act clearly lays down that issue of such Circulars shall not interfere with the discretion of the Collector, Central Excise, in exercise of his Appellate Functions. Therefore, this will not be treated to be binding on the Authorities in exercising their judicial discretion. The authorities shall objectively consider the matter and decide whether formulation of pesticides amounts to manufacture or not.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. Since the appeal of the appellant is pending before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal expeditiously.