ORDER
U.L. Bhatt, J. (President)
1. These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Assistant Collector on the classification lists filed during some period in 1990 as also orders passed on show cause notice for demand. The respondent is a unit of the Punjab State Electricity Board. Electric trans- formers are repaired in the unit. Respondent replaces coils in repairing trans- formers. Respondent has been submitting price lists, in relation to coils (though it is said that the practice has been stopped since the last few years). The dispute before the Assistant Collector was as to whether the excise duty paid by the Board while purchasing copper wires and in regard to which Modvat Credit was availed, should be deducted from assessable value of the wires made into coils in the unit. The Assistant Collector took the view that the Modvat Credit cannot be deducted from the cost of inputs. In some of the appeals, respondent raised the contention that the price lists were being sub- mitted on an erroneous impression or on the suggestion of the department and actually there is no manufacture involved and there is no excisable event and, therefore, the process of valuation should not have been undertaken. The respondent placed reliance on earlier orders of Tribunal in support of the contention that the respondent did not “manufacture” coils within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act). The Collector (Appeals) fol- lowed the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and held that there was no manufac- ture and no excisable event and, therefore, there was no question of determining the assessable value or imposing excise duty. These orders are now challenged.
2. In the appeals where question of excisability was not raised, Collec- tor (Appeals) held that the duty element of the inputs should be deducted from the assessable value of coils for the purpose of excise duty; these orders are now challenged by the Revenue.
3. The following questions arise for consideration in these appeals :
1. Whether the conversion of wire into coils by the respondent amounts to “manufacture” attracting excise duty, and
2. if so, whether in the assessable value of coils, the duty element of the inputs is to be included.
4. There are four earlier orders passed by the Tribunal holding that the activity of conversion of wire into coil by the respondent did not amount to “manufacture” as defined in the Act and, therefore, coil was not dutiable product. The earliest of these decisions is reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 340. This decision was followed by the Tribunal subsequently in Order Nos. 1002-1003 of 91-A, dated 26-11-1991, Order Nos. 178 & 179 of 1992, dated 28-4-1992 and Order Nos. 6 to 14 of 1995, dated 19-12-1994. The Tribunal considered the process of conversion of wire into coil as stated by the Collector namely that the wire would be wound on wiring machine as per specification and insulation paper inserted between each layer of wire and the coils so prepared is treated with insulating varnish. The Tribunal held that wire was arranged in coil with insulation and there was no manufacture involved.
5. The question of binding nature or relevance of a decision of a taxing authority has been considered elaborately by the High Court of Delhi in J.K.Synthetics Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1981 (8) E.L.T. 328. Referring to certain decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the principles of res judicata as such will not apply in tax matters. The Court also held, after referring to the earlier decisions in the matter that an authority can depart from a finding in an earlier order only for cogent reasons : there should be either fresh facts or change of law or at least a suggestion that while arriving at the conclusion of the earlier order certain material facts or provisions had not been considered and if they had considered the same, a different view might- have been taken but in the absence of any such reasons there can be no departure from an earlier order.
6. To the same effect is the decision of the High Court of Madras in Bush Boake Allen (India) Limited v. Union of India 1995 (77) E.L.T. 529.
7. In the circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) was not justified in holding that there was no process of manufacture involved without consider ing the material on record and without asking himself the question whether of there has been any change of fact or change of law or change of method of production etc. after the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The respondent in the present appeals has urged that the earlier decision of the Tribunal must be ad- hered to. In some of the appeals the Collector (Appeals) had no opportunity to consider such a plea. The Assistant Collector had no opportunity to consider the plea inasmuch as the respondent filed classification lists without reference to the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, probably on misapprehension or, as is alleged, on the suggestion of the excise authority. We are, therefore, satisfied that the matter requires a proper examination by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.
8. In the above view we do not consider the controversy relating to deduction of the duty element of the input from the valuation. If they are not exigible the question of valuation would not arise. The question would arise only if it is held, that the process adopted by the respondent amounts to “manufacture”. The matter regarding such deduction has been heard by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited v. CCE, Pune case and order is awaited [Since reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 (Tri.)]. The Assistant Collector will follow whatever view be taken by the Tribunal in that case.
9. In the result, the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) leading to these appeals are set aside. The cases are remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for disposal according to law and in the light of the observations in this order. Appeals are accordingly allowed.