CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Miscellaneous Application No. 86760 of 2025 (on behalf of appellant)

IN Excise Appeal No. 86065 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GOA-EXCUS-000-APP-338-2016-17 dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II (Goa)]

M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd. .… Appellant

601, ‘A’ Wing, Infinity Tower, Mindscape, Off Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064.

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, …. Respondent Panaji, Goa ICE House, E.D.C. Complex, Patto Plaza, Goa -403 001 AND Excise Appeal No. 86065 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. GOA-EXCUS-000-APP-338-2016-17 dated 30.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II (Goa)]

M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd. .… Appellant

601, ‘A’ Wing, Infinity Tower, Mindscape, Off Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064.

Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Goa …. Respondent ICE House, E.D.C. Complex, Patto Plaza, Goa -403 001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ranjan Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85446/2026 Date of Hearing: 18.03.2026 Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 PER: S.K. MOHANTY This miscellaneous application has been filed by the appellant for change of name of the respondent from “The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panaji, Goa” to “The Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Goa”. The prayer made by appellant is considered and accordingly, the miscellaneous application is allowed. The changed name of the respondent is substituted in the cause title of this appeal.

2. Heard both sides and examined the case records.

3. Brief facts of the case are that during the disputed period, the appellant had purchased “Styrene Butadiene Latex”, falling under Chapter Heading 40.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had purchased such goods on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The said goods are diluted with water in the vessel and after stirring either manually or using electric power for 15-20 minutes, the resultant material coming out of such process, is packed in different size of packages, affixing with the brand name of “Sika Latex” and “Sika Latex Power”. Such process undertaken by the appellant was interpreted by the Department as a manufacturing activity and accordingly, proceedings were initiated for confirmation of the duty demand on the alleged ground of manufacture of the excisable final product. The show-cause proceedings initiated by the Department were adjudicated by the learned adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original dated 18.01.2016 in confirming the proposals made therein. On appeal against the said adjudication order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated

30.01.2017, the appellant had preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The period of dispute involved in the present appeal is from April 2007 to February 2015. We find that for the earlier period from December 2004 to March 2007, an identical issue in the case of the appellant itself, came up for hearing before the Tribunal and vide Final Order No. A/85887- 85888/2019 dated 13.05.2019, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant, holding that process undertaken by it in adding water to the raw material, stirring styrene butadiene latex would not amount to manufacture of the excisable goods. The relevant paragraphs recorded in the order dated 13.05.2019 by the Tribunal are extracted herein below: -

“7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently laid down the test to determine whether a process or series of process on t