S. Sankarasubban, J.

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. Originally when the petitioner was compelled to pay excise duty, she approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 5820 of 1990.O.P. No. 5820/90 was disposed of by Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. by judgment dated 29th June, 1990. The learned judge directed the fourth respondent to hear the petitioner and take a decision on the matter as to whether there was any manufacturing process. The judgment of the learned judge is produced as Ext. P2 in the Original Petition. In tune with Ext. P2, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the fourth respondent. It is Ext. P3. The petitioner gave a reply to Ext. P3 by Ext. P4 dated 5.9.1990. Thereafter, the fourth respondent passed Ext. P5 order dated 5.11.1990. The fourth respondent took the view that manufacturing process was involved and hence it was subject to levy of duty. From Ext. P5 it can be seen that the fourth respondent relied on the report of the Chief Chemist. According to the Chief Chemist, the blending of Dextrose Mono Hydrate with Tri calcium Phosphate and Vitamin D was done with some specific purpose, ie., to enrich the product with Calcium and Vitamin D. The enriched product is not merely Dextrose Mono Hydrate, but a product of different character and identity. The 4th respondent also took note of the marking on the carton which showed that it was intended for use as a food for extra energy.

4. Against Ext. P5 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent-Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) - as Appeal No. 1547 91(C). The appeal was disposed of by order dated 13.5.1991, true copy of which is produced as Ext. P6 in the Original Petition. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the original authority and dismissed the appeal. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under S.35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.7.1993. The main order was rendered by the Judicial Member Jyothi Balasundaram and S.K. Bhatnagar gave a separate concurring judgment. It is challenging Ext. P7 that the Original Petition was filed.

5. 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) b