2004 (4) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- In this appeal of the department, the challenge is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no "manufacture" was involved in the respondents' process of compressing and bottling of Carbon dioxide received through pipeline from various fertiliser units. The period of dispute is July 1995 to February 1997. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e retrospective effect and, consequently, the goods in question would become excisable. This argument does not hold good inasmuch as the appeal memo itself states that the Chapter Note was introduced with effect from 1-5-1997. That the Note has only prospective operation having been conceded by the appellant, we need not labour on the point. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied on a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court's finding of fact is the relation to the goods in question, which we are dealing with. Following the finding of the Hon'ble High Court, we hold that the process undertaken by the respondents did not amount to ''manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and consequently the goods in question was not excisable. The impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X