ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. A sum of Rs. 10,896/-, Rs. 74,519/- and Rs. 73,058/- respectively have been demanded from each of the three applicants on the ground that by subjecting the bitumen received by them to the process of “blowing” a commodity which is commercially different from bitumen and therefore liable to duty as having been manufactured emerges.
2. The Advocate for the applicants says that although there is a decision on merits against the applicants in Bitumen Products (India) v. Collector of Central Excise , there has been a consistent practice by this Tribunal of granting stay because of the existence of a contrary view in the orders of the Board dated 16.6.1987 and 1.7.1988. He cites Order No. 423 dt 9.9.1993 passed in the case of M/s Tiki Felt Industries.
3. The Deptl. representative says that once the issue has been settled by the decision of the Tribunal there is no question of grant of stay and therefore opposes the applications.
4. While there is a subsisting order of this Tribunal that although bitumen is chemically different and therefore liable to duty as a manufactured product, the fact remains that, by issue of various trade notices, the orders of the Board that no duty would be payable on duty paid bitumen subjected to have been communicated to the trade. This Tribunal has also been granting stay in two orders dt. 11.2.1992 and the order cited by the representative of the applicant. Since there has been no material change in the position subsequent to Board’s order dt. 9.9.19/93, we follow the Board’s order and grant waiver of pre-deposit and order stay of recovery in all the three cases.
(Dictaled in Court)
