TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phur 99%) procured and used by the Respondent are the same, the process undertaken and the chemicals added to Sulphur 99% are the same; the nature as well as composition and use of the products obtained by the Respondent i.e Casvet Fertis- WG are the same, the structures of Chapter 25,38 and 31 of tariff are also the same, and most importantly there is no change in definition of manufacture and excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, nor it is there any new pronouncement of a Judicial or quasi-judicial forum affecting the concepts of manufacture or that of excisable goods or classification. In another decision of the Apex Court in JAYASWALS NECO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [ 2006 (1) TMI 133 - SUPREME COU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondent is different from the input raw Sulphur. This products appeared to be identifiable goods as different, known as such in the market. On culmination of such an investigation, show cause notice was issued to the respondent herewith directing to show cause as to why the process of the resultant product Sulphur-90% WG with the brand name of CosavetFertis from sulphur may not be held amounting to manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority, after considering the submissions made before him and also after granting personal hearing to the respondent, dropped the proceedings initiated by said show cause notice. Aggrieved by such an order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Shri. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on the case of Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. 1990(49) ELT 326 (SC). Thus the disputed product is chargeable to Central Excise Duty and Ld. Commissioner has clearly erred in the present order by not confirming the demands of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 10,11,17,667/- and Rs. 8,58,26,239/- alongwith consequential interest and penalties on the assessee. 4. Shri. Paresh M Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that all the facts and applicable legal provisions remain the same as regards the case ultimately decided by the Hon ble Tribunal on 06.08.12 and the period cover under show cause notices subsequently issued on 24.08.2015 and 05.10.2015. When detailed discussion about manufacture was recorded i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used by the Respondent are the same, the process undertaken and the chemicals added to Sulphur 99% are the same; the nature as well as composition and use of the products obtained by the Respondent i.e Casvet Fertis- WG are the same, the structures of Chapter 25,38 and 31 of tariff are also the same, and most importantly there is no change in definition of manufacture and excisable goods under the Central Excise Act, nor it is there any new pronouncement of a Judicial or quasi-judicial forum affecting the concepts of manufacture or that of excisable goods or classification.In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical to previous case which has already been decided by the Tribunal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become final. 6. This Court in a catena of cases has consistently taken the view that if an earlier order is not appealed against by the Revenue and the same has attained finality, then it is not open to the Revenue to accept judgment/order on the same question in the case of one assessee and question its correctness in the case of some other assessees. The Revenue cannot pick and choose. (See : Union of India and Others v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal and Another - 2001 (10) SCC 231); Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Tata Engineering Locomotives Co. Ltd. - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 130 (S.C.); Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.); JayaswalsNeco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed and was therefore, dismissed. The respondent having taken a conscious decision to accept the principles laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 193 (CEGAT)] cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in this case. If we were to permit them to do so, the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary. 8. Since the point involved in the present case is identical to the point decided in Hindustan Gas and Industries case [1996 (88) E.L.T. 413 (CEGAT)] and the Department having accepted the principle laid therein to the effect that the inserts did not require any precision machining or that any such machining was done by the appellant, cannot be per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
