TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Saharanpur, by his order dated 11-4-1986, referred to the process of manufacture of lime stone chips and powder by crushing and sieving of limestone to obtain chips of different sizes and powder of limestone; and held that this amounted to a process of manufacture for which he relied upon the amended Sec. 2(f) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 25.05 CETA '85. This heading covers, inter alia, mineral substances not elsewhere specified, lime, etc. He also denied exemption under Notification 23/55 on the ground that the exemption is only to such goods employed as filler and that limestone chips and powder cannot be considered as fillers. The relevant extract of the Notification is as fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tled that mere change in physical form cannot amount to manufacture and in the present case there was only change in physical form from limestone to chips and powder by crushing, grinding and sieving. No chemical change is involved. As regards eligibility to exemption under Notification 23/55, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the issue stands settled by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Madhu Chemicals -1986 (23) E.L.T. 166 (T) and also by its decision, subsequently, in the case of CCE v. Oriental Products -1987 (28) E.L.T. 147 (T) wherein it has been held that for exemption under Notification 23/55, end use specified therein need not be proved. Sh. Jayaraman, the Ld. S.D.R. appearing for the Collector, relied upon the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture". The new definition differs from the old in that instead of setting out the activities which will amount to manufacture in respect of different tariff items as was done earlier, the new definition in clause (ii) lays down that any process which is specified in Section/Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Tariff Act will constitute 'manufacture'. In the present case Note 2 under Chapter 25 reads as follows : "Heading Nos. 25.01, 25.03 and 25.05 cover only products which, have been washed (even with chemical substances, eliminating the impurities without changing the structure of the product), crushed, ground, powdered, levigated, sifted, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the use of the substance for the purpose of exemption under the notification. Looking at the notification, it does not appear to us that such use should be proved. What appears to be relevant is that the substance should be known to be used or employed as extender, suspending agent, etc. There are several exemption notifications under Central Excise Rule 8(1) which set out specific procedures to be complied with in order that exemption may be earned. In the present notification, there is no such stipulation". The ratios of these are applicable to the facts of the present case and it also appears that the appellants had led evidence regarding such use before lower authorities. In the result, the goods are eligible for exemption under Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 544 (SC). 5. CCE, Patna v. Pyrites, Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., Bihar - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 537 6. Y. Moideen Kunhi & Others v. CCE, Bangalore & Others -1986 (23) E.L.T. 293 In all these cases, the view that has been taken was that the processes which were undertaken in respect of the products did not amount to manufacture as no new product emerged and the original product continued to remain the same despite the products undergoing several processes. It has been held in these rulings that the processes that the products undergo, will not amount to manufacture as no new commodity emerges. 8. Shri Jayaraman, learned Departmental Representative, has on the other hand, relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Indus....