Service of original order and sawing of timber: appeal maintainable on non-service, and processing did not amount to manufacture.

Where service of the order-in-original was not established and the address on the order was incomplete, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in directing issue of a certified copy and entertaining the appeal; the appeal was therefore maintainable. On merits, sawing of timber was not treated as manufacture because it did not produce a new and distinct product, and the point was considered settled by earlier decisions. The Revenue's challenge failed on both maintainability and the manufacture issue, and the respondents' position was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Collector (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the respondents' appeal after holding that service of the original order had not been established and directing issue of a certified copy; (ii) whether sawing of timber amounted to manufacture of excisable goods.

Issue (i): whether the Collector (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the respondents' appeal after holding that service of the original order had not been established and directing issue of a certified copy.

Analysis: No evidence was produced to show timely service of the order-in-original on the respondents. The address shown on the original order was also incomplete. In these circumstances, the direction to issue a certified copy and the consequent entertainment of the appeal were held to be proper.

Conclusion: The Collector (Appeals) rightly treated the respondents' appeal as maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether sawing of timber amounted to manufacture of excisable goods.

Analysis: The activity of sawing timber was found not to bring into existence any new and distinct product. The issue on manufacture was treated as settled in favour of the respondents by earlier decisions.

Conclusion: Sawing of timber did not amount to manufacture.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed both on the question of maintainability and on merits, and the respondents succeeded in sustaining the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of the original order is not proved and no new product emerges from processing timber, the appeal may be entertained on proof of non-service and the activity does not amount to manufacture.

---