Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Dabur India Ltd on 22 July, 2015 cites

Laljee Godhoo & Co. Vs. Respondent: ... vs Laljee Godhoo & Co. on 28 February, 2001

7. The learned Counsel for M/s Dabur also relied on the Honble Supreme Courts order in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. Laljee Godhoo & Co. reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 514 (S.C.). In that case the Honble Supreme Court examined the processes undertaken to convert raw hing to make compounded asafoetida. The Honble Apex court held that there is no chemical change in these processes and the product at the starting point and the terminal point remains the same. The essential character of the product remain constant and accordingly held there is no process of manufacture. We find in the present case also the process undertaken to produce tamarind concentrate/paste does not produce any chemical change and the product at the starting point and at the end of the remains the same, but for formation of pulp and removal of added water/moisture. Hence, we find that in the production of tamarind paste/concentrate no process amounting to manufacture is involved. It is pertinent to note that the Department also held the same view in the earlier proceedings as confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) against which the Revenue is in appeal in two cases. The reason for change in the stand by the Revenue in the subsequent proceedings has not been brought out clearly. There is no change in the process and it is only the change of interpretation without any additional evidence by the Revenue which resulted in confirmation of demands for the later periods. After careful consideration on the evidence on record we hold that there is no justification for the change in the Departments view and hold that there is no process amounting to manufacture in this case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1