COMMNR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI Vs. TIKITAR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (for short, "the Act"), the following two questions have been framed by the revenue for adjudication:

(2.) Since admittedly answer to both the afore-noted, questions stands concluded by the decisions of this Court, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts giving rise to these appeals.

(3.) Insofar as the first question is concerned, a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of the present assessee in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. Tikatar Industries, 2006 202 ELT 215. Relying on the circular issued by the Board on 1st July, 1988, it was held that the process of converting straight grade bitumen into blown grade bitumen through Oxidation, known as blowing process, does not amount to manufacture and therefore, exempted from payment of Excise duty. Thus, while observing that the Revenue cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to its own stand in the said circular, the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal" was affirmed.