1989 (10) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Item 15A(1), CET or Item 68, CET.
2. Whether the process of emulsifying silicone oil amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Act.
3. Applicability of Explanation II and III to Item 15A(1), CET.
4. Classification of goods under Item 15AA, CET.
5. Assessable value adopted by the Department.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of goods manufactured by a company engaged in producing silicone products and emulsions. The Assistant Collector provisionally approved the classification under Item 68 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, but later classified the goods under Item 15A(1), CET. The company continued to clear the goods under Item 68, leading to a demand notice for the differential duty amount. The Collector (Appeals) held that since the goods did not possess resinous character or plasticity, they rightly fell under Item 68, CET, setting aside the demands against the company.

2. The appellant argued that the process of emulsifying silicone oil resulted in a new product, silicone emulsions, constituting "manufacture" under the Act. It was contended that the Collector (Appeals) erred in requiring resinous character or plasticity for classification under Item 15A(1), CET. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision to support the Revenue's position.

3. The respondents argued that the emulsification process did not amount to "manufacture" as it was only a physical mixing, not involving chemical synthesis. They contended that silicone emulsions should be classified under Item 68, not 15A(1), CET. They further relied on Explanations II and III to argue that duty should not be charged again on products made from duty-paid silicone oil.

4. The issue of classification under Item 15AA, CET was raised by the respondents, claiming that their products should be exempt from duty under this classification. However, due to insufficient information, the Tribunal could not determine the applicability of this classification and left it for the Assistant Collector to decide.

5. The respondents also raised concerns about the assessable value adopted by the Department, alleging that it was based on a single consignment price, ignoring the normal price range. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue due to lack of sufficient material and directed the Assistant Collector to consider this aspect during the fresh adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matters to the Assistant Collector for a fresh adjudication, allowing the respondents an opportunity to present their case adequately.