- (1.) All these appeals can be disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5192 of 1998 will hereinafter be referred TO as ASCU. They manufacture preservatives for the purpose of preserving wood and timber against insects and other natural hazards. In respect of the preservatives there is no dispute. However, ASCU also put wood through a process and then impregnate it with their own preservatives. The question which arises is whether "densified wood" has come into existence by virtue of the process undertaken by them.
(3.) The Collector held in favour of the assessee and held that "densified wood" had not come into existence. The Collector also so held in favour of two other parties who are Respondents 2 and 3 in Civil Appeals Nos. 3228-30 of 1999. The Department filed three appeals before the Tribunal. The tribunal took up all the appeals together and passed a common order. In passing a common order, the Tribunal relied on statements made by the director of ASCU. It also relied upon the literature of ASCU and on two test reports which pertained to samples taken from the other two parties. Based on these materials, the Tribunal held that "densified wood" had been manufactured. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal of the department on the ground of limitation. It did so again only on the basis of correspondence exchanged between the Department and ASCU.;