K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T) and S.L. Peeran, Member (J)

The ld. Counsel, Shri Lakshmikumaran appearing for the appellants, addressed arguments on the points of difference spelt out above. In regard to the question of classification of the product 'Ujala' under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the ld. Counsel contended that the classification of the product under sub-heading 3202.29 is the correct one. The ld. Counsel submitted that 'Ujala' is based only on acid violet dye and the addition of Ranipal and ultramarine blue has really no significant effect and the product continued to exhibit the same property as acid violet dye. The ld. Counsel submitted that 'Ujala' contains 98.5% of acid violet dye and, therefore, it is, at best, a preparation of acid violet dye and as such, classification tinder sub-heading 3204.29 would be appropriate.

145. In respect of the issue whether the production of Ujala results in the emergence of a new product, consequent upon the process of manufacture, the ld. Counsel submitted that Ujala exhibits all the properties of acid violet and does not exhibit the property of ultramarine blue or of the fluorescent agent. The essential characteristics remain unchanged. Ranipal and ultramarine blue are only additives to give synergic effect. This is proved by the fact, the ld. Counsel pointed out, that during the earlier period, and subsequent to the period material to this case, Ranipal and ultramarine blue were not being added and Ujala is sold and used by the consumers as such without any difference whatsoever. The ld. Counsel pointed out that the Departmental Chemical Examiner has categorically opined that no new product has emerged. National Chemical Laboratory and the technical opinion of Dr. Arvind Patwardhan also confirmed this view. Therefore, experts of both sides have, according to the appellants, clarified and opined that no new product has emerged based on substantial technical authority. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Lakaki Works (P) Ltd. - MANU/CE/0227/1988 : 1988 (37) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal) as also in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mallaye Fine Chem (P) Ltd. already referred to by the two members (supra). These decisions would support their claim that in the processes undertaken by them by admixture of Ranipal and ultramarine blue with acid dye to make Ujala, no new product emerges and there is no process of manufacture undertaken. It was submitted that acid violet dye is a stainer giving a violet colour on the surface of substrate, the ld. counsel urged that if it is to be used as dye in the case of textiles it is to be mixed with organic or acids known as mordents only then the colour fixation will take place in the fibre. The acid violet dye preparation as a mixture of acid violet dye Ranipal and ultramarine blue would continue to be such a preparation and there is no manufacture. The ld. Counsel also relied upon Note 6 to Chapter 32 CET in support of his arguments that there is no manufacture involved. It was submitted that so far as dyes are concerned according to Chapter Note 6, conversion of unformulated, unstandardised or unprepared forms of dye to formulated, standardised, prepared dyes alone would constitute manufacture. It was submitted that unformulated and un-standardised dyes would be classifiable under sub-heading 3204.21 and on conversion into standardised dye, they would fall under sub-heading 3204.29 and in that event, the process of conversion would amount to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note. In all other cases, it was contended that as far as the dye industry is concerned, there is no manufacture. This view had been endorsed by the Tribunal in its decisions in the case of Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd., Madras and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Mallaye Fine Chem. (P) Ltd. (supra). It is the appellants' case that since the inputs are already formulated dye falling under sub-heading 3204.29 chan