Pure excavation does not amount to manufacture, so concessional tax benefit depends on proof of actual mineral processing.

Pure excavation of felspar quartz, without proved processing such as cleaning, dressing or shaping, does not amount to manufacture for purposes of a concessional notification, so the assessee cannot claim the benefit on excavation alone. Because the record lacked a clear factual finding on the nature of the process actually undertaken, the Tribunal's order could not stand. The matter was therefore remitted for a proper determination of whether the activity made the assessee a manufacturer and whether the related single-point taxation consequence followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether mere excavation of felspar quartz amounts to manufacture for the purpose of the concessional notification; (ii) whether the Tribunal's order could stand in the absence of a finding on the nature of the process undertaken by the assessee.

Issue (i): whether mere excavation of felspar quartz amounts to manufacture for the purpose of the concessional notification.

Analysis: The record did not contain any clear finding as to what, if any, further process was applied to the mineral after excavation. Pure excavation, without cleaning, dressing, shaping, or any similar processing, does not by itself amount to manufacture. The benefit of the notification could be claimed only if the dealer was shown to be a manufacturer on the basis of the process actually undertaken.

Conclusion: Mere excavation does not amount to manufacture, and the concessional benefit cannot be availed of on that basis alone.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal's order could stand in the absence of a finding on the nature of the process undertaken by the assessee.

Analysis: The authorities below had recorded conflicting views without any adequate evidentiary finding on the nature of the processing, if any. In such a situation, the proper course was to obtain a factual finding on whether the assessee's activity brought it within the category of manufacturer and to consider the question of single-point taxation accordingly.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable and was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a finding on the nature of the process and the assessee's entitlement to the notification benefit.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded for the revenue and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for fresh determination on the factual issue of manufacture and the related tax consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: Pure excavation of minerals, without proved processing amounting to manufacture, does not confer entitlement to a concessional tax notification, and where the factual basis is absent the matter must be remitted for a proper finding.

---