M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)

1. In consequence of the Appellate Collector allowing five Appeals preferred by the Respondent against five adjudication orders (nos. 1274, 2712, 2709, 4946 and 4950) made on diverse dates between 25-1-80 and 9-4-80, Government of India issued a notice dated 19-5-81 requiring the Respondent to show cause as to why the order of the Appellate Collector (allowing the five Appeals of the Respondent) should not be set aside, in exercise of the powers of Review vested under Sec. 36(2) of tie Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-as it read at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proceedings in review that were thus initiated were transferred to the Tribunal and heard as Appeals, pursuant to the provisions in Sec. 35(P) of the Act. They are Appeal Nos. 1449, 1489,1491, 1493, 1494.

2. Identical issues arising in all the five Appeals are-

(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, recovery of Caprolactum from wash water constituted manufacture of Caprolactum ?

(b) If so, was it classifiable under item 14AA of the 1st Schedule to the Act. (Adjudication Order No. 1274) and accordingly assessable to duty during the periods