Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (2) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellants to explain why the Order-in-appeal No. 438/440/BII-30-32/82, dated 24-3-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay should not be set aside. By the said Order-in-appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held that the processing of the Formic Acid dilute of 65% strength into Formic Acid of 85% strength did not fall within the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, and as such, the value of its clearances should not be included in the computation of annual clearances for the purpose of Notification No 176/77-C.E. and he set aside the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, who held that such processing amounted to manufacture and their value should be includ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ker was in diluted form with 65% concentrate. May Baker sold these goods as diluted Formic Acid 60 to 65% strength. It was not a waste product nor was it impure as alleged by the Department. The product was marketable and as such, it was purchased by the respondents. Although it is not used by M/s. May Baker, it has various uses like textile furnishing, leather processing, food preservation, electroplating, as a germicide, as a fermentation assistant in brewing and as a coagulant for rubber, as indicated at Page 324 of the Materials Handbook by George S. Brady and Henry R Clauser (Eleventh Edition). Desiccation is a process of removing water from substances by making the vapour pressure in the substance greater than that of its surround .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion in Michical v. Pinch (1906 2KB 35) on which the Collector (Appeals) also placed reliance while deciding the matter in favour of the respondents. The respondents have also stated that they did not apply for registration of patent and the patent does not belong to them. In support of this contention, they have produced photo copy of Patent A. No. 002021 (No. 146687 of 27-12-1977) which is in the name of Bakul Finechem Research Centre, Worli, Bombay, and in which there is no mention of the word manufacture or manufacturer . 5. The learned Consultant has argued before us that increasing the strength of Formic Acid to 85% is not a manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, and has relied up .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Acid is subjected to process by the appellants, by which the strength of Formic Acid increased from 65% to 85% . The Collector (Appeals) has held that this process does not amount to manufacture . He has relied upon the judgment in the famous case of Michical v. Pinch (1906 2KB 352). He has also relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. (1977 E.L.T. (J 199)], in which the Supreme Court held that to amount to manufacture , the process must be such that a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or use . We are inclined to uphold the view of the Collector (Appeals). The present ease falls within the fourwalls of the decision in Michical v. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct has been prepared by the respondents so as to be within the definition of manufacture . The present case before us is clearly covered by earlier decision of this Tribunal, being Order No. C-462/85 in appeal No. E/506/85-C in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. M/s. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd., Aurangabad, reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 889. In the case of M/s. Anil Chemicals (P) Ltd., Ammonium Nitrate of 82% was purchased by the company and its was converted into Ammonium Nitrate of 99% by the process of prilling. The Central Excise duty was paid on Ammonium Nitrate of 82%. This Tribunal held that by the prilling process strength of the Ammonium Nitrate was changed, which did not result in a raw product. It was Ammonium Nit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates