Deeming manufacture of ore concentrates covers crushing, grinding, screening and washing, with penalty excluded in a bona fide dispute.

Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26 deems conversion of ores into concentrates to be manufacture, and that deeming rule extends to crushing, grinding, screening and washing when those processes remove foreign matter and produce material fit for metallurgical use or economical transport. Read with the HSN explanatory notes, iron ore processed in this way is treated as iron ore concentrate and classified under sub-heading 26011150. In a bona fide interpretative dispute arising within the normal period, penalty under Section 11AC is considered unwarranted. A fresh exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95-CE must be verified by the adjudicating authority where eligibility was not examined earlier.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether crushing, grinding, screening and washing of iron ore result in manufacture of iron ore concentrates under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are classifiable under sub-heading 26011150. (ii) Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is sustainable and whether the claim for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 required examination by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether crushing, grinding, screening and washing of iron ore result in manufacture of iron ore concentrates under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are classifiable under sub-heading 26011150.

Analysis: Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26 creates a deeming fiction that the process of converting ores into concentrates amounts to manufacture. The term "concentrates" was read with the HSN explanatory notes, which describe concentrates as ores from which part or all foreign matter has been removed by special treatment, including physical and physico-chemical operations such as crushing, grinding, screening, grading and washing. The earlier decisions relied on by the appellants were distinguished because they dealt with manufacture in the general sense and not the effect of the later statutory note. The Board's clarification and the Ministry of Mines' communication were considered consistent with the view that such processes, when applied to ores and resulting in a product fit for metallurgical use or economical transport, bring the goods within the definition of concentrates.

Conclusion: The processes in question amount to manufacture of iron ore concentrates and the resultant goods fall under sub-heading 26011150.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is sustainable and whether the claim for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 required examination by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The dispute on penalty arose from an interpretation of the tariff entry and the chapter note, and the demands involved the normal period. In those circumstances, penalty was found unwarranted. The claim for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, and the factual eligibility had not been examined by the adjudicating authority. That question therefore required remand for verification.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC is not sustainable. The exemption claim under Notification No. 63/95-CE must be examined by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part by setting aside penalty, while the demand was upheld in one appeal and the remaining matters were remanded only for examination of exemption eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff chapter note deems conversion of ores into concentrates to be manufacture, physical processes that convert ore into concentrate for metallurgical use or economical transport fall within the charging provision, and penalty is not justified in a bona fide interpretative dispute involving the normal period.

---