http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR ETC. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAJASTHAN STATE CHEMICAL WORKS DEEDWANA, RAJASTHAN ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1991

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

RANGNATHAN, S.

OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:

1991 AIR 2222 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 124

1991 SCC (4) 473 JT 1991 (4) 6

1991 SCALE (2)602

ACT:

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Section 2(f), Item

No. 68 of First Schedule--Notification No. 179/77, CE dated

18.6.1977--Exemption in relation to manufacture of which no

process is carried on with the aid of power--Assessees using

power to lift raw materials--Whether fails within 'process

of manufacture'-- Exemption--Whether available.

Words & Phrases: "Manufacturing Process"- Meaning of.

HEADNOTE:

By way of notification dated 18.6.1977, the Central

Government exempted from duty all goods falling under Tariff

item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and

Salt Act, 1944 in or in relation to manufacture of which no

process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.

The respondents in the first set of appeals have been

manufacturing crude sodium sulphate. Since the respondents

used diesel pumps for pumping brine into salt pans, in the

process of manufacture, the benefit of the said notification

was denied to them on the ground that the process of manu-

facture was carried on with the aid of power. However, on

appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the

benefit to the respondents. Revenue preferred an appeal and

the Tribunal affirmed the Collector's order.

In the other appeals, the Respondents, manufacturer of

lime, used to lift the raw materials to the platform at the

head of the kiln by the aid of power and the raw materials

were mixed manually into the kiln. The benefit of the said

notification was denied to the Respondents by the Assistant

Collector. Even an appeal before the Collector of Appeals

failed. However, on appeal the Tribunal accepted the claim

of the Respondents.

In all these matters the Tribunal took the view that the

manufacturing process started from the stage of feeding raw

materials into the salt pan or the kiln as the case may be

and the transferring of the raw materials was a stage prior

to the manufacturing process and so the

125

use of power for such transfer would not disentitle the

respondents from the benefit under the said notification.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, the Revenue has

preferred the present appeals.

Before this Court, the Revenue contended that pumping

the brine into the pan or lifting the raw materials to the

kiln head was a process in relation to the manufacture of

the final product and since that process with the aid of

power was integrally connected with the manufacture, the

exemption would not apply.

The Respondents contended that if the process carried on

with the aid of power does not bring about any change in the

raw materials, it cannot be said that any process in or in

relation to the manufacture of an article has been carried

on with the aid of power and, therefore, mere transfer of

raw materials by the use of power cannot be considered as a

process of manufacture.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. Process in manufacture or in relation to

manufacture implies not only the production but the various

stages through which the raw material is subjected to change

by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the

various processes to which the raw materials is subjected to

the manufactured product emerges. Therefore, each step

towards such production would be a process in relation to

manufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally

connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for

that process manufacture of processing of goods would be

impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is one

in relation to the manufacture. [130 E-F).

2.1 The natural meaning of the word 'process' is a mode

of treatment of certain materials in order to produce a good

result, a species of activity performed on the subject-

matter in order to transform or reduce it to a certain

stage. There is nothing in the natural meaning of the word

'process' to exclude its application to handling. There may

be process which consists only in handling and there may be

a process which involves no handling or not merely handling

but also use. It may be a process involving the handling of

the material and it need not be a process involving the use

of material. The activity may be subordinate but one in

relation to the further process of manufacture. [130G, 131

A-B]

126

2.2 A process is a manufacturing process when it

brings out a complete transformation for the whole compo-

nents so as to produce a commercially different article or a

commodity. But, that process itself may consist of several

processes which may or may not bring about any change at

every intermediate stage. But the activities or the opera-

tions may be so integrally connected that the final result

is the production of a commercially different article.

Therefore, any activity or operation which is the essential

requirement and is so related to the further operations for

the end result would also be a process in or in relation to

manufacture to attract the relevant clause in the exemption

notification. The word 'process' in the context in which it

appears in the notification includes an operation or activi-

ty in relation to manufacture. [132H, 133 A-B]

J.K. Cotton Mills v.S.T. Officer, [1965] 1 SCR 900;

Union of lndia v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, [1963] Supp.

1 SCR 586, relied on.

3.1 The transfer of raw material to the reacting vessel

is a preliminary operation but it is part of a continuous

process ,but for which the manufacture would be impossible.

The handling of the raw materials for the purpose of such

transfer is then integrally connected with the process of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

manufacture. The handling for the purpose of transfer may be

manual or mechanical but if power is used for such opera-

tion, it cannot be denied that an activity has been carried

on with the aid of power in the manufacturing process. The

use of diesel pump sets to fill the pans with brine is an

activity with the aid of power and that activity is in

relation to the manufacture. It is not correct to say that

the process of manufacture starts only when evaporation

starts. The preliminary steps like pumping brine and filling

the salt pans form integral part of the manufacturing proc-

ess even though the change in the raw material commences

only when evaporation takes place. The preliminary activity

cannot be disintegrated from the rest of the operations in

the whole process of manufacture. Similarly, when coke and

lime are taken to the platform in definite proportions for

the purpose of mixing, such operation is a step in the

manufacturing process. It precedes the feeding of the mix-

ture into the kiln where the burning takes place. The whole

process is an integrated one consisting of the lifting of

the raw materials to the platform mixing coke and lime and

then feeding into the kiln and burning. These operations are

so interrelated that without anyone of these operations

manufacturing process is impossible to be completed. There-

fore, if power is used in

127

anyone of these operations or anyone of the operations is

carried on with the aid of power, it is a case when in or in

relation to the manufacture the process is carried on with

the aid of power. [133 C-G]

3.2 'Processing' may be an intermediate stage in manu-

facture and until some change has taken place and the com-

modity retains a continuing substantial identity through the

processing stage, one cannot say that it has been manufac-

tured. That does not, however, mean that any operation in

the course of such process is not in relation to the manu-

facture. [136 E]

Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax; Ernakulam v. Pio Food

Packers, AIR 1980 SC 1227; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth &

General Mills, [1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 586; Standard Fireworks

Industries v. Collector, 1987 (28) ELT 56 (SC), relied on.

Nirma Chemical Works & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,

1981 ELT 617 (Guj.); Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of

India, AIR 1981 SC 1014, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 359394

of 1989.

From the Order dated 26.5.1988 of the Customs Excise and

(;old (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in

545-546/88-C in Appeal No. E/COD/699/87-C in Appeal No.

E/847/84-C with E/1/85-C.

WITH

Civil Appeals Nos. 642-643/91, 1723-1731/91.

A.K. Ganguli, Ms. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeshwaran and A.

Subba Rao for the Appellant.

Rajinder Sachar, Aruneshwar Gupta, Manu Mridul, P.I.

Jose and Sanjay Parekh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. These appeals by the Revenue under

Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in-

volve the interpretation of the Notification No. 179/77 CE

dated 18.6.1977. The Notification read thus:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

rule (1) of rule 8 of

128

the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central

Government hereby exempts all goods failing

under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)

in or in relation to the manufacture of which

no process is ordinarily carried on with the

aid of power, from whole of the duty of excise

leviable thereon".

Tariff Item 68 during the relevant period

read:-

"All other goods, not elsewhere specified,

manufactured in a factory but excluding..."

M/s. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, the respondents in

Civil Appeals Nos. 3593-94 of 1989, are manufacturers of

crude sodium sulphate. In the process of manufacture of

common salt from brine, in the salt pans in which the proc-

ess of evaporation takes place some quantities of sodium

sulphate present in the brine also crystalise and settle at

the bottom as crust. The sodium sulphate is thus obtained as

a bye-product. For the purpose of the manufacture, brine is

pumped into salt pans using diesel pumps.

The benefit of the aforesaid notification was not given

to these respondents as pumping of brine into the pans was

carried on with the aid of power. The claim for exemption

though denied by the original authority, was allowed by the

Collector of Customs (Appeals) and that order was affirmed

by the Tribunal.

M/s. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd., the respondents in

Civil Appeals Nos. 642-643 of 1991 and 1723-1731 of 1991 are

manufacturers of lime from coke and lime stone. The raw

materials are lifted to the platform at the head of the kiln

by the aid of power. At the kiln head, the raw materials are

mixed manually and fed into the kiln. Since power is used

for lifting the raw materials at the kiln head, these re-

spondents were denied the benefit of the notification by the

Assistant Collector. The appeal before the Collector of

Appeals was dismissed. The Tribunal, however, accepted the

claim of the respondents.

The Revenue being aggrieved has challenged the respec-

tive orders of the Tribunal in these appeals.

129

In both these set of cases, the view taken by the Tribu-

nal is that the manufacturing process starts from the stage

of feeding raw materials into the salt pan or the kiln as

the case may be. The transportation of the raw materials to

the platform at the kiln head and the pumping of brine into

the salt pan is a stage prior to the commencement of manu-

facturing process. Therefore, the transferring of the raw

materials is not a part of the process of manufacture and

the use of power for such transfer would not disentitle the

respondents from the benefit under the notification.

It has been contended before us on behalf of the appel-

lant that pumping the brine into the pan o: lifting the raw

materials to the kiln head is a process in relation to the

manufacture of the final product and since that process with

the aid of power is integrally connected with the manufac-

ture, the exemption would not apply. On the other hand, it

is reiterated for the respondents that if the process car-

ried on with the aid of power does not bring about any

change in the raw material, it cannot be said that any

process in or in relation to the manufacture of an article

has been carried on with the aid of power and, therefore,

mere transfer of raw materials by the use of power cannot be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

considered as a process of manufacture.

The Central Government has exempted all goods failing

under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act in or in

relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinari-

ly carried on with the aid of power from the whole of the

duty of excise leviable thereon. The exemption under this

notification is available only when the goods are manufac-

tured without the aid of power at any stage of the process.

Where manufacture involves series of processes and if anyone

of such processes is carried on with the aid of power, the

case is taken out of the purview of the notification.

We have to consider what activity amounts to process in

or in relation to manufacture of goods for the application

of the notification. The word 'manufacture' has been defined

in Section 2(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944,

thus:-

"2(1). 'Manufacture' includes any process- (i)

incidental or ancillary to the completion of a

manufactured product; and

(ii) which is specified in relation to any

goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the

Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,

1985 as amounting to manufacture".

130

Clause (f) gives an inclusive definition of the term

'manufacture', According to the dictionary, the term 'manu-

facture' means a process which results in an alteration or

change in the goods which are subjected to the process of

manufacturing leading to the production of a commercially

new article. In determining what constitutes 'manufacture'

no hard and fast rule can be applied and each case must be

decided on its own facts having regard to the context in

which the term is used in the provision under consideration.

Manufacture implies a change but every change is not

manufacture, yet every change of an article is the result of

treatment, labour and manipulation. Naturally, manufacture

is the end result of one or more processes through which the

original commodities are 'made to pass. The nature and

extent of processing may vary from one class to another.

There may be several stages of processing, a different kind

of processing at each stage. With each process suffered the

original commodity experiences a change. Whenever a commodi-

ty undergoes a change as a result of some operation per-

formed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount

to processing of the commodity. But it is only when the

change or a series of changes take the commodity to the

point where commercially it can no longer be regarded as the

original commodity but instead is recognised as a new and

distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take

place.

Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process

in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not

only the production but the various stages through which the

raw material is subjected to change by different operations.

It is the cumulative effect of the various processes to

which the raw material is subjected to, manufactured product

emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would

be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any

particular process is so integrally connected with the

ultimate production of goods that but for that process

manufacture of processing of goods would be impossible or

commercially inexpedient, that process is one in relation to

the manufacture.

The natural meaning of the word 'process' is a mode of

treatment of certain materials in order to produce a good

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

result, a species of activity performed on the subject-

matter in order to transform or reduce it to a certain

stage. According to Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of

the word 'process' is "a continuous and regular action or

succession of actions taking place or carried on in a defi-

nite manner and leading to the accomplishment of some re-

sult." The activity contemplated by the definition

131

is perfectly general requiring only the continuous or quick

succession. It is not one of the requisites that the activi-

ty should involve some operation on some material in order

to its conversion to some particular stage. There is nothing

in the natural meaning of the word 'process' to exclude its

application to handling. There may be a process which con-

sists only in handling and there may be a process which

involves no handling or not merely handling but use or also

use. It may be a process involving the handling of the

material and it need not be a process involving the use of

material. The activity may be subordinate but one in rela-

tion to the further process of manufacture.

In J.K. Cotton Mills v.S.T. Officer, [1965] 1 S.C.R 900,

this Court 'in construing the expression 'in the manufacture

of goods' held thus:-

"But there is no warrant for limiting the

meaning of the expression 'in the manufacture

of goods' to the process of production of

goods only. The expression 'in the manufac-

ture' takes in within its compass, all proc-

esses which are directly related to the actual

production".

The Court further held thus:-

"The expression 'in the manufacture of goods'

would normally encompass the entire process

carried on by the dealer of converting raw

materials into finished goods. Where any

particular process is so integrally connected

with the ultimate production of goods that but

for that process, manufacture or processing of

goods would be commercially inexpedient, goods

required in that process would, in our judg-

ment, fail within the expression 'in the

manufacture of goods'."

In that case, the assessee carrying on the business of

manufacturing textile goods claimed that certain goods

namely drawing material etc. were used in the manufacture.

The Court said that if the process of designing is so inte-

grally connected with the process of manufacturing of cloth,

there is no reason to regard the process of designing as not

being a part of the process of manufacture. The process of

designing may be distinct from the actual process of turning

out finished goods but, there is no warrant for limiting the

meaning of the expression 'in the manufacture of goods' to

the process of production of goods only. The expressions'

'in the manufacture of goods' takes within its encompass all

processes which are directly related to the actual produc-

tion.

132

In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, [1963]

Supp. 1 S.C.R. 586, this Court held thus:-

"The definition of 'manufacture' as in s. 2

(13 puts it beyond any possibility of contro-

versy that if power is used for any of the

numerous processes that are required to turn

the raw material into a finished article known

to the market the clause will be applicable;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

and an argument that power is not used in the

whole process of manufacture using the word in

its ordinary sense, will not be available."

In that case, it was contended that manufacture is

complete as soon as by the application of one or more proc-

esses the raw material undergoes some change. In answering

the contention, the Court stated thus:--

"We are unable to agree with the

learned Counsel that by inserting this defini-

tion of the word "manufacture" in s. 2 (f) the

legislature intended to equate "processing" to

"manufacture" and intended to make mere

"processing" as distinct from "manufacture" in

the same sense of bringing into existence of a

new substance known to the market, liable to

duty. The sole purpose of inserting this

definition is to make it clear that at certain

places in the Act the word 'manufacture' has

been used to mean a process incidental to the

manufacture of the article. Thus in the very

item under which the excise duty is claimed in

these cases, we find the words: "in or, in

relation to the manufacture of which any

process is ordinarily carried on with the aid

of power". The definition of 'manufacture' as

in s. 2 (f) puts it beyond any possibility of

controversy that if power is used for any of

the numerous processes that are required to

turn the raw material into a finished article

known to the market the clause will be ap-

plicable; and an argument that power is not

used in the whole process of manufacture using

the word in its ordinary sense, will not be

available. It is only with this limited pur-

pose that the legislature, in our opinion,

inserted this definition of the word 'manufac-

ture' in the definition section and not with a

view to make the mere '*processing" of goods

as liable to excise duty."

A process is a manufacturing process when it brings out

a complete transformation for the whole components so as to

produce a commercially different article or a commodity.

But, that process itself may consist of

133

several processes which may or may not bring about any

change at every intermediate stage. But the activities or

the operations may be so integrally connected that the final

result is the production of a commercially different arti-

cle. Therefore, any activity or operation which is the

essential requirement and is so related to the further

operations for the end result would also be a process in or

in relation to manufacture to attract the relevant clause in

the exemption notification. In our view, the word 'process'

in the context in which it appears in the aforesaid notifi-

cation includes an operation or activity in relation to

manufacture.

The transfer of raw material to the reacting vessel is a

preliminary operation but it is part of a continuous process

but for which the manufacture would be impossible. The

handling of the raw materials for the purpose of such trans-

fer is then integrally connected with the process of manu-

facture. The handling for the purpose of transfer may be

manual or mechanical but if power is used for such opera-

tion, it cannot be denied that an activity has been carried

on with the aid of power in the manufacturing process. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

use of diesel pump sets to fill the pans with brine is in

activity with the aid of power and that activity is in

relation to the manufacture. It is not correct to say that

the process of manufacture starts only when evaporation

starts. The preliminary steps like pumping brine and filling

the salt pans form integral part of the manufacturing proc-

ess even though the change in the raw material commences

only when evaporation takes place. The preliminary activity

cannot be disintegrated from the rest of the operations in

the whole process of manufacture. Similarly, when coke and

lime are taken to the platform in definite proportions for

the purpose of mixing, such operation is a step in the

manufacturing process. It precedes the feeding of the mix-

ture into the kiln where the burning takes place. The whole

process is an integrated one consisting of the lifting of

the raw materials to the platform mixing coke and lime and

then feeding into the kiln and burning. These operations are

so interrelated that without anyone of these operations

manufacturing process is impossible to be completed. There-

fore, if power is used in anyone of these operations or

anyone of the operations is carried on with the aid of

power, it is a case where in or in relation to the manufac-

ture the process is carried on with the aid of power.

Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the deci-

sion of the Gujarat High Court in Nirma Chemical Works &

Ors. v. Union of india & Ors., 1981 E.L.T. 617 (Guj.),

submitted that process means an operation which brings about

some change in the raw material. That in the present case,

the operation of putting the raw materials, namely, coke

,red lime

134

stone on the kiln head does not bring about any change in

the raw material but the raw materials remain in the same

shape as they were when they were brought in the truck and

were dumped separately on the ground and, therefore, this

operation can be termed only 'transportation' and cannot be

called a 'process'. The Gujarat High Court in Nirma Chemi-

cal Works (supra) said:-

"It must be made clear that it is only at the

stage of transferring liquid raw materials

from the motor tanker to the storage tank that

power is used and at no subsequent stage is

any power used.

If no change is brought about in the raw

material until it reaches the re-action ves-

sel, then no process of manufacture can be

said to have taken place until the raw materi-

als are taken to the re-action vessel. Till

then they are all preparations made but the

raw materials continue to be the same raw

materials. Until sulphuric acid and alkyd

benzene start re-acting on each other, no

change takes place in the raw materials.

Merely because the goods are stored in one

place, may be at an elevated place above the

ground, it cannot be said that a process of

manufacture which would convert the raw mate-

rial by different stages into the final

product has been undergone. In view of the

decision in Chowgule & Co. 's (supra) as to

what is meant by processing, it is clear that

unless and until some change takes place in

the raw material of the original commodity, no

process can be said to have been gone through.

Before any operation can be characterised as a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

process, the commodity must, as a result of

the operation, experience some change."

Counsel for the respondents submitted that a process in

or in relation to the manufacture commences as soon as the

change is brought about in the raw material and ends till

the manufactured product is marketed. Until some change

physical or chemical is brought about in the raw material,

there is no process in or in relation to the manufacture.

Mere collecting, storing or dealing with the raw material

are operations and/or activities prior to the beginning of

process. Mere physical alteration of the site or placement

of raw materials or stacking, storing the same cannot be

said to be a process in relation to manufacture. In the case

of preparation of sodium sulphate, it is said that the

process in or in relation to manufacture commences after the

brine is placed in the salt pans. The counsel

135

submits that if every operation and/or activity and/or

action is treated as a 'process' in or in relation to manu-

facture then power is used in (i) erection of factory where

steel, cement, bricks etc. are used, (ii) day-to-day trans-

portation and (iii) use of electricity for lights, fans etc.

These arguments are far-fetched. The activity in relation to

which power is used is not to be considered into isolation

where the activity is such that it forms an integral part of

the whole process. The Gujarat High Court in interpreting

the word 'process' has assumed that 'process' is synonymous

to 'processing' and has drawn support from the observations

of this Court in Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India,

A.I.R. 1981 SC 1014. We are afraid, the observations had not

been properly understood or applied in drawing inference

that process when used in relation to manufacture must be

one that produces a change in the commodity. It has been

made clear in Dy. Commissioner, Sales Tax; Ernakulam v. Pio

Food Packers, A.I.R. 1980 SC 1227 that: -

"Commonly manufacture is the end result of one

or more processes through which the original

commodity is made to pass. The nature and

extent of processing may vary from one case to

another, and indeed there may be several

stages of processing and perhaps a different

kind of processing at each stage. With each

process suffered, the original commodity

experiences a change. But it is only when the

change, or a series of changes, take the

commodity to the point where commercially it

can no longer be regarded as the original

commodity but instead is recognised as a new

and distinct article that manufacture can be

said to take place?

It has been made clear in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth

& Genera, Mills (supra) that the definition of the word

'manufacture' in Section 2 (f) puts it beyond any possibili-

ty of controversy that if the power is used for any of the

numerous processes that are required to turn the raw materi-

als into a finished article known to the market, it would be

a case where in or in relation to manufacture process has

ordinarily been carried on with the aid of power.

It is, therefore, wrong to conclude that every operation

in the course of the manufacture should bring about a change

and if any operation with the aid of power does not result

in a change, it cannot be an integral part of the process in

or in relation to manufacture. In Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

case, what this Court said is that:-

136

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

"Wherever a commodity undergoes a change as a

result of some operation performed on it or in

regard to it, such operation would amount to

processing of the commodity."

What is necessary in order to characterise an operation

as "processing" is that the commodity must, as a result of

the operation, experience some change. The question is not

whether there is manual application of energy or there is

application of mechanical force. Whatever be the means

employed for the purpose of carrying out the operation, it

is the effect of the operation on the commodity that is

material for the purpose of determining whether the opera-

tion constitutes "processing". In drawing the distinction

between 'processing' and 'manufacture', this Court observed

in Delhi Cloth Mills case thus:-

"To say this is to equate "processing" to

"manufacture" and for this we can find no

warrant in law. The word "manufacture" used as

a verb is generally understood to mean as

"bringing into existence a new substance" and

does not mean merely "to produce some change

in a substance", however minor in consequence

the change may be."

Thus "processing" may be an intermediate stage in manu-

facture and until some change has taken place and the com-

modity retains a continuing substantial identity through the

processing stage, we cannot say that it has been manufac-

tured. That does not, however, mean that any operation in

:he course of such process is not in relation to the manu-

facture. While interpreting the same exemption notification

in Standard Fireworks Industries v. Collector, 1987 (28)

E.L.T. 56(SC), it was held that manufacture of fireworks

requires cutting of steel wires and the treatment of papers

red, therefore, it is a process for manufacture of goods in

question. The Notification purports to allow exemption from

duty only when in relation to the manufacture of goods no

process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It

was observed that cutting of steel wires or the treatment of

the papers is a process for the manufacture of goods in

question.

We are, therefore, of the view that if any operation in

the course of manufacture is so integrally connected with

the further operations which result in the emergence of

manufactured goods and such operation is carried on with the

aid of power, the process in or in relation to the manufac-

ture must be deemed to be one carried on with the aid of

power. In this

137

view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention

that since the pumping of the brine into the salt pans or

the lifting of coke and lime stone with the aid of power

does not bring about any change in the raw material, the

case is not taken out of the Notification. The exemption

under the Notification is not available in these cases.

Accordingly, we allow these appeals. In the facts and cir-

cumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.

138