ORDER 1. The point involved in this batch of eight sets of appeals is, whether the c straight grade bitumen which is converted into blown grade bitumen through oxidation known as "blowing process", amounts to manufacture and as to whether it is eligible for exemption from payment of excise duty under the notification in question. All these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New ( Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in its common order dated 10-3-2000, relying upon various circulars issued by the Board before and after coming into force of the new tariff, has held that both straight grade bitumen of petroleum and blown grade bitumen of petroleum are classifiable under Sub-Heading 2713.21 or 2713.22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") depending on whether those are packed in drums or in bulk and no duty would be chargeable on blown grade bitumen of petroleum if made out of duty-paid straight grade bitumen of petroleum. 3. The Tribunal in para 20 of the impugned judgment, has recorded the following finding: "We also observe that after consulting the Chief Chemist, the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified as early as on 2-6-1979 that blown grade bitumen is a variety of 'bitumen' but when it is produced from duty-paid straight grade bitumen, it will not be liable to duty under Item 11 CET. Again the Board, vide Tariff Advice No. 41 of 1982 dated 16-7-1982 clarified that blown grade bitumen would fall under Item 11 of the old tariff. We also observe that the Chief Chemist advised that blown grade bitumen is an oxidised variety of 'straight grade bitumen' and as such it cannot be said that a new commercial commodity with a new name, character or use comes into existence by the process of air blowing. After the introduction of the present Central excise tariff, it was again clarified by the Board vide Circular dated 16-6-1987 that 'both straight grade bitumen of petroleum and blown grade bitumen of petroleum would be classifiable either under Sub-Heading 2713.21 or 2713.22 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, depending on whether those are packed in drums or in bulk and no duty would be chargeable on blown grade bitumen of petroleum if made out of duty-paid straight grade bitumen of petroleum'. It is again evident from this clarification that the classification was based on the mode of packing. This is clear from the Board's Circular dated 1-7-1988 in which it was mentioned that 'the new CET has made a departure from HSN in respect of petroleum bitumen by making their modes of packing a criterion for their classification under different sub-heading'. The Board, keeping this criterion, it seems, further clarified that duty would be chargeable on blown grade bitumen where it falls under a sub-heading different from the sub-heading under which duty-paid straight grade bitumen falls because of variations in their modes of packing. In the light of this clarification we do not find any substance in the learned SDR's argument that the circular does not mean to say that the process of converting into blown grade bitumen does not amount to manufacture. This is apparent from the next sentence in the Board's letter dated 1-7 -1988 which reads as under: 'However, where the duty-paid straight grade bitumen of petroleum out of which the blown grade bitumen of petroleum has been produced and the blown grade bitumen of petroleum so produced fall under the same sub-heading, because of the same mode of packing no duty would be chargeable on such blown grade bitumen of petroleum.' " 4. In view of the Board's circulars and the findings recorded thereon by the Tribunal, Shri Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, fairly conceded that the Revenue cannot take a stand contrary to its own circulars issued by the Board from time to time. He conceded that the finding recorded in para 20 of the impugned order is unassailable. 5. In Bitumen Products (India) v. CCE while considering Item 11, which was under the old tariff, the Tribunal took a contrary view holding that, the assessee was ineligible for the exemption under the notification, as the Board's circulars were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal for its consideration. Therefore, Bitumen easel on which reliance was placed by the learned SDR before the Tribunal, has rightly not been followed by the Tribunal in the present case. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this batch of appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.