Chamfering of cast copper articles was not treated as further working, so the exemption remained available.

Chamfering of cast copper articles did not, on the facts stated, amount to bevelling or other further working so as to take the goods out of the description "not further worked". The term "chamfering" was treated as capable of more than one meaning, and the assessee's explanation that the activity was only grinding was accepted, supported by the presence of a bench grinder and no evidence of a sophisticated bevelling process. On that basis, the articles retained their character and the exemption under Notification No. 178/88-C.E. remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether chamfering of cast copper articles amounted to bevelling or other further working so as to take the goods out of the expression "not further worked" and deny the benefit of Notification No. 178/88-C.E.

Analysis: The expression "chamfering" was capable of more than one meaning, including grinding off bevel-wise or cutting furrows or channels. It did not automatically mean bevelling. The assessee's explanation that the activity was only grinding was accepted, and the record indicated the presence of only a bench grinder, supporting the view that no sophisticated bevelling process had been undertaken. On that basis, the cast articles retained their character and did not cease to be "not further worked".

Conclusion: Chamfering in the present facts did not amount to bevelling or disqualifying further working, and the exemption under the notification remained available.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the order allowing the assessee's claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufacturing process is capable of multiple meanings, exemption cannot be denied unless the Department establishes that the process actually amounted to a disqualifying form of further working on the goods.

---