TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise. Chandigarh, [1993 (9) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] as an incorrect and a wrong decision – Held that:- We need not examine this issue in great depth and deal as similar contention was raised and answered by a Single Judge of this Court in Kissan Chemicals v. Union of India [1996 (5) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT DELHI ] - The Board could not have issued the circular for rendering a decision of the Tribunal as irrelevant and nugatory - It was observed that issuance of the circular by the Board in the present facts was not an appropriate remedy - The remedy actually was to challenge and question the ratio in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner had drawn attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts have issued a notification/circular dated 27th July, 1995 directing the authorities to treat the said process as "manufacture". It is accordingly submitted that in view of the notification/circular dated 27th July, 1995, the adjudicating authority is bound and has to pass an adverse order and nothing survives or is required to be adjudicated. Notification/circular dated 27th July, 1995 has been enclosed as Annexure A to the writ petition. 4. The said circular refers to the order of Customs Excise Board Tribunal No.300/1993 dated 15.9.1993 in the case of Markfed Agro Chemicals v. Collector of Central Excise. Chandigarh, reported in [1994] 50 ECR 417 (T) holding that the process involving dilution would not amount to "manufacture" under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court or the Supreme Court to get the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal contested or challenged. The Board could not have issued the circular for rendering a decision of the Tribunal as irrelevant and nugatory. It was observed that issuance of the circular by the Board in the present facts was not an appropriate remedy. The remedy actually was to challenge and question the ratio in appropriate proceedings. 6. We have been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that this decision of the Single Judge has been accepted by the respondents. This decision has also been followed by the Division Benches of Gujarat High Court in Indichem V. Union of India. 1996 (88) ELT 35 (GUJ.), Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Insecticides L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
