Powdering minerals not manufacturing under excise law

The Tribunal accepted the appeal, ruling that the process of powdering minerals did not amount to manufacture under central excise law. It emphasized that no new marketable commodity emerged from the powdering process, aligning with established legal principles that a mere change in form without creating a new commercial product does not constitute manufacture. The decision was supported by previous judgments, including one involving a similar issue with Waxpol Industries Ltd., reinforcing the interpretation that altering the form of a substance does not necessarily result in excisability.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether the process of powdering minerals amounts to manufacture and renders the product excisable under central excise law.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Process of Powdering Minerals and Manufacture
The appeal challenged an order regarding the excisability of powdered minerals extracted through mining operations. The appellants argued that powdering the minerals did not constitute manufacture as the character, composition, and use of the material remained the same before and after the process. They cited various judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support their contention that a mere change in form without creating a new marketable commodity does not amount to manufacture. The Department, however, contended that the process of powdering was necessary for the minerals to be used effectively, relying on a High Court judgment that considered grinding and screening as a manufacturing process. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and previous judgments, ultimately agreeing with the appellants. It noted that no new commodity had come into existence through the powdering process, distinguishing the case from instances where a new marketable product emerged post-processing. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of recent judgments, including one involving a similar issue with Waxpol Industries Ltd., which supported the view that a mere change in form does not create a new commercial commodity. Consequently, the appeal was accepted based on the established legal principles and precedents cited.

This detailed analysis covers the central issue of whether the process of powdering minerals constitutes manufacture under central excise law. It outlines the arguments presented by both parties, references to relevant case law, and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at its decision to accept the appeal. The analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles applied in determining excisability in this context.

---