ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUN.SEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CUSTOMS; EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CEGAT) DATED

24-8-1999.

3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 ARE MANUFACTURER OF ETHAMBUTOL HYDROCHLORIDE IP. FOR MANUFACTURE OF THIS PRODUCT, THEY IMPORT TWO ITEMS (I) DL-2 AMINOBUTANOL, AND (II) TARTARIC ACID. IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE TWO INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS, NAMELY, DL 2 AMINOBUTANOL AND L-2 ABT COME INTO EXISTENCE. FOR OUR PURPOSE WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH L-2 ABT. THESE TWO COMPANIES GIVE L-2 ABT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE 1ST RESPONDENT MERELY RECOVERS TARTARIC ACID, CONTAINED IN L-2 ABT, AND RETURNS THE TARTARIC ACID TO RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT TARTARIC ACID WAS BEING MANUFACTURED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THEY CLAIM THAT IT IS A NEW AND DISTINCT PRODUCT FROM L-2 ABT. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, SOUGHT TO LEVY DUTY ON THE MANUFACTURE OF TARTARIC ACID. THE COMMISSIONER HELD, ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS AFFIDAVITS FILED BY PERSONS IN THE TRADE AND EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, THAT THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURE BUT ONLY RECOVERY OF TARTARIC ACID. THE COMMI