SMARTCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE .

(2.) HEARD Mr. Praesh M. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents on the question of interim relief.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government has submitted that when the Larger Bench of CEGAT has already held in Supreme Chemical Works' case that the statement of law in Anil Chemicals' case must be held to be incorrect, the view taken by the respondent -officers cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Mr. Patel has further referred to the reply affidavit of Mr. Haresh T Bhatia, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vapi Division stating that Circular No. 44/99, dated 19 -7 -1989 of the CBEC was issued on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in Anil Chemicals' case and, therefore, once the very foundation of the circular has been knocked down by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Supreme Chemicals Works' case, the respondents are justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioners for recovery of excise duty on the basis that prilling amounts to manufacturing. Mr. Patel has further submitted that when the Tribunal has held that the decision in Anil Chemicals' case was not correct, but the decision in IDL Chemicals' case was not correct, it means that the manufacturing process is the same in both the cases. Hence, the judgment of the Larger Bench of CEGAT is applicable in the instant case. Mr. Patel has also relied on Circular No. 23/98, dated 27 -74998 from the Directorate General of Anti -Evasion (Central Excise) in support of his contention that prilling Ammonium Nitrate involves manufacturing process.