COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS excise reference was admitted on the following question of law: Whether dilution of Alletherin to 3.6% by weight concentration (w/w) from 90% concentration/purity by adding deodorized K -oil as inert carrier/solvent, perfume as masking agent, DHT (Dibutyl Hydroxy Tulune) as stabilizing agent amounts to manufacture?

(2.) TO appreciate the question it would be relevant to refer to the definition of manufacture under the Central Excises and Salt Act. Manufacture has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act as follows: 2(f) 'Manufacture' includes any process, - - (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture. And the word 'manufacturer' shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacturer of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account.

(3.) THE adjucating authority held that both the concentrated alletherin used by the party and the diluted alletherin fall under the same subheading and there is no process of manufacture. The Department filed an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the same. Thereafter, the Department filed another appeal lo the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which also dismissed the same relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise v. Markfed Agro Chemicals .