Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. With the consent of both sides, we dispose of this Central Excise Appeal finally. In the light of the order passed in the Central Excise Appeal, the controversy in the Writ Petition would be academic.

4. The appellants have pointed out that they are engaged in the activity of purification of excise duty paid Hexane and Petroleum Ether, which are supplied to them on free of costs basis by M/s. Merck Specialties Private Limited (for short, "M/s.Merck"). The appellants carry out purification, if required, on job work basis. During the relevant period, M/s. Merck purchased the above goods, namely, Hexane and Petroleum Ether from various suppliers and directed the suppliers to transport the said goods to the appellants. In addition M/s. Merck also Deshmane, (P.S.) 3 of 23 903&904-wp.279-15&CEXA.179-14.doc supplied purified Hexane and Petroleum Ether to the appellants for laboratory testing and repacking purposes. The appellants have stated as to how the job work assigned to them has been carried out and they claimed that the process of purification of Hexane and Petroleum Ether as well as that of repacking from bulk to smaller/retail packs does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants claimed that these purified Hexane and Petroleum Ether obtained from duty paid Hexane and Petroleum Ether are cleared from the factory of the appellants in the name of grades such as Guaranteed Reagent Hexane for Chromatography Lichrosolv grades.

5. The appellants have described the entire process and which they claim as job work on and of M/s. Merck. We need not advert to those details and which are set out till page-9 of the appeal paper book (para- 6.5).

6. The appellants pointed out that in the past the Revenue had sought recovery of duty on the reprocessed and repacked Hexane and Petroleum Ether relying upon the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 Deshmane, (P.S.) 4 of 23 903&904-wp.279-15&CEXA.179-14.doc and the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prevalent at present. The appellants have been registered with the Department in terms of both the earlier and the prevalent Rules, namely, Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants pointed out that M/s. Merck had obtained loan license as a manufacturer in the premises of the appellants. Besides Hexane and Petroleum Ether, the appellants were also receiving some other chemicals for purification in respect of which there is no dispute. M/s.

Merck filed declaration under Rule 173C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the capacity of a principal manufacturer in the unit of the appellants. In the said declaration, the details of activity undertaken by the appellants on the duty paid Hexane and Petroleum Ether were furnished to the Department. The Revenue had relied upon the visit which was paid by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Belapur I Division. There was a communication dated 27 th February, 2001 issued by the said Superintendent. The appellants point out that the above products were classified under Sub-Heading 27.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The purified Hexane and Petroleum Benzine 60-80 which were cleared by the appellants after repacking to M/s. Merck were also classified under this chapter of Central Excise Tarrif. The Deshmane, (P.S.) 5 of 23 903&904-wp.279-15&CEXA.179-14.doc appellants claimed to have replied to the letter of the Superintendent and made him known this entire process. They were of the view that the Department is satisfied with the explanation and no show cause notice was issued. However, despite such extensive correspondence carried out with the Revenue, the appellants were called upon to pay the duty on the ground that the processing activity carried out by using boiler, reactor etc. amounts to manufacture on account of which the duty demand was raised. This correspondence from March to May 2006 is relied upon. Equally this continued in the year 2007 as well. However, a show cause notice was issued and which resulted in an order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur dated 29th October, 2007. He held that the activity of purification of Hexane and Petroleum Ether carried out by M/s. Bharat Dye Chem amounts to manufacture and thereby purified grades of Hexane and Petroleum Ether are required to pay duty. The case of that entity, namely, M/s. Bharat Dye Chem was relied upon to seek clarifications from the appellants and pursuant to the alleged non-satisfaction of the Revenue even the appellants proceeded to receive a show cause notice dated 8th February, 2008. That show cause notice proposed to demand Deshmane, (P.S.) 6 of 23 903&904-wp.279-15&CEXA.179-14.doc Central Excise duty in the sum of Rs.2,34,81,983/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This was on the clearance of the purified Hexane and Petroleum Ether from January, 2003 to November, 2007. Even interest was also claimed and the notice also proposed to impose penalty.

15. It is apparent that show cause notice is dated 8 th February, Deshmane, (P.S.) 13 of 23 903&904-wp.279-15&CEXA.179-14.doc 2008 and which was the subject matter of the proceedings pertaining a demand for the period January, 2003 to November, 2007. There is a second show cause notice dated 16th December, 2008 which is also referred to by the Tribunal. We find from the factual narration in the Tribunal's order that the Tribunal was concerned with the validity and legality of these two show cause notices whereunder a demand was raised for the period January, 2003 to November, 2007 and from December, 2007 to September, 2008. The ground alleged in the show cause notice is that the activity of repacking / relabeling / refining of laboratory chemicals undertaken by the appellants in respect of Petroleum Benzine and Hexane for Chromatography Lichrosolv would amount to "manufacture" and, therefore, it was required to discharge excise duty liability. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that these activities did not result into manufacture of a new product and held that the said process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to "manufacture".