Exemption for soap made without power or steam for heating was not lost merely because a power-driven machine was used.

Soap chips manufactured from trimmings in the same factory were not liable to excise duty under the exemption notification merely because a machine run on power was used. The controlling test was whether any process in their manufacture involved the aid of power or steam for heating. On the stated facts, there was no evidence that power was used for heating, so the notification could not be denied on the basis of power-driven machinery alone and the duty demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether soap chips manufactured from trimmings in the same factory with the aid of a machine run on power were liable to excise duty under the exemption notification governing soap manufactured without the aid of power or steam.

Analysis: The exemption applied to soap in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process had been carried on with the aid of power or steam for heating. The duty demand could succeed only if the manufacture of soap chips was shown to involve the aid of power for heating. On the facts, there was no evidence that power was used for heating in the manufacture of the soap chips, and the notification could not be attracted merely because the chips were produced with the aid of a machine run on power.

Conclusion: The demand for excise duty was not sustainable, and the appeal failed.

---