JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. Special Appeal Nos. 227 of 2011, 236 of 2013, 237 of 2013, 275 of 2013 and 276 of 2013 are preferred, by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs-II against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 446 of 2008 and batch dated 02.08.2011. It would suffice, for the disposal of these appeals, if the facts in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 446 of 2008 are noted. The petitioner therein, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carries on business in the manufacture of turpentine, rosin and its derivatives. It runs a unit where raw pine resin is processed by distillation for producing derivatives viz., rosin and turpentine. The raw pine resin, collected from pine trees, is used as a raw material in the industrial unit belonging to the first petitioner. The forest department, of the State of Uttarakhand, collects raw pine resin through its contract labour, and sells it to processing units, in a public auction, in its natural form.

2. Pursuant to an auction notice, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, District Almora, the first petitioner participated in the auction held at the Resin Depot, and a number of lots of pine resin were purchased by them. After being informed by the Resin Depot Officer that e-auction sale of certain lots had been confirmed in their favour, the first petitioner was asked to deposit certain amounts which included Excise Duty. They were not permitted by the Forest Department to lift resin, and Central Excise Duty and Education Cess was insisted on being deposited. The petitioner claims not to have any other alternative, but to furnish fixed deposit receipts towards Central Excise duty.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the forest department had earlier accepted bank guarantees/FDRs from them in respect of the disputed amount of Central Excise on the raw pine resin purchased by the first petitioner; they had illegally encashed some of the bank guarantees/FDRs, and had threatened to encash the remaining bank guarantees/FDRs; the resin purchased by them, in the auction sale, was a natural produce which was tapped from pine trees; no manufacturing process was involved, which was a condition precedent for imposition of excise duty; the resin, sold by the forest department in the public auction, was in its crude form, and was not subjected to any processing by the forest department; after collection, from the forest, the resin is dumped in the resin depots; imposition of excise duty, on such a natural produce which was collected from the forests, is arbitrary and illegal; resin was sold without any process in its raw form, and it did not undergo any change or transformation before it was put to auction; there was no question of any new or different article being sold by the forest department; the resin, sold by the forest department in its raw form, has no commercial value except for resin based units, which use it as raw material; the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu had certified that no manufacturing process was involved till the resin was sold in the auction by the forest department; a Senior Scientist, in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, had also certified that Oleo Pine Resin is segregated from pine trees, and is collected at the point of bleeding; excise duty has been levied on the first petitioner completely misreading Chapter 13 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; the raw pine resins, mentioned in Chapter 13, are extracted after subjecting the raw material to an industrial process; the raw resin, enumerated in Chapter 13, are of seeds, fruits, leaves, spices, flowers and roots; raw oleo pine resin is nowhere mentioned as it belongs to a different category; raw pine resin cannot be subjected to excise duty by covering it under Tariff Item No. 1301 90 49; and the term "other" should be read ejusdem generis with the other items under the head "Oleo Resins".

4. According to the responden