THRESSIAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in o. P. No. 14526 of 1993. THE Original Petition was dismissed by judgment dated 23. 12. 1998. In the Original Petition, the petitioner had prayed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ and set aside Ext. P7 order dated 21. 7. 1993 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' ). THE grievance of the petitioner which was highlighted in the Original Petition is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner/ appellant is the propritrix of Vijaya packers. THE petitioner, on behalf of M/s. Corn Products Company ( India ) Ltd, who market Glucovita Glucose D, had undertaken the process of mixing and blending dextrose Mono Hydrate with 0. 6% of Tricalcium Phosphate and 0. 00025 % Vitamin-D on job work basis. According to the petitioner, Tricalcium Phosphate was added as an anti-caking agent and Vitamin D to improve the quality of Dextrose without any chemical change or reaction. According to the petitioner, there is no manufacturing process within the meaning of S. 2 (f) of the Central Excise and salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act ). THE fourth respondent in the Original Petition, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, was of the view that the process involved manufacture and thus subject to levy of excise duty.

(3.) THE main ground taken in the Original Petition is that at the time of hearing the appeal before the Tribunal, the Departmental representative submitted that Tricalcium Phosphate and Vitamin D are deliberately added to Dextrose Mono Hydrate by the petitioner for the specific purpose of providing nutrients to the human body. THE Departmental representative relied on certain extracts from the book titled' Normal and therapeutic Nutrition' (17th Edition) by Corinne H. Robinson and the Judicial member has referred to various extracts from that book. According to the petitioner, it is on the basis of the new ground and fresh evidence relied on for the first time that the Tribunal passed the order against the petitioner. THE petitioner contended in the Original Petition that the allowing of fresh evidence was in violation of R. 23 of the Customs Excise Gold (Control)Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, according to which new evidence can be given only after giving an application and after hearing both parties and after the Tribunal being satisfied that it was necessary. According to the petitioner, she had and even now having evidence to rebut the ground urged that to provide nutrition to the human body a minimum quantity of Calcium and phosphrous and Vitamin D are required and if as a matter of fact, an opportunity had been given to the petitioner the petitioner would have been able to convince the Tribunal that the Calcium Phosphate and Vitamin D were not of the minimum dose required to provide nutrients. Hence the petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal is in violation of R. 23 of the Rules as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice. In ground No. D the petitioner had taken the ground that the order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and in ground No. C, the petitioner had taken the contention that there is violation of R. 23 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules.