Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

31.?We, thus, are of the opinion that in the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that by virtue of Note 4, concentrate has to be necessarily treated as different from ores which is deemed as manufactured product after Molybdenum Ores underwent the process of roasting. Once we keep in mind that conversion of ores into concentrate is considered as manufacture and, therefore, becomes liable for central excise levy, exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. is to be interpreted in this light as the Legislature has intended to treat ores and concentrates as two distinct items and Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. exempts only ores, concentrates automatically falls outside the purview of said notification. It is rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the Revenue that exemption notifications are to be construed strictly and even if there is some doubt, benefit thereof shall not enure to the assessee but would be given to the Revenue. This principle of strict construction of exemption notification is now deeply ingrained in various judgments of this Court taking this view consistently. 5.27 A cumulative reading of the ratios of the above judgements, the chapter note 4 of chapter 26 and the relevant tariff entry, makes the legislative intention and object clear that the processes which on application on ores held by the courts/tribunal earlier as not amounting to manufacture, by virtue of the chapter note, a legal fiction has been created bringing such processes into the fold of the definition of manufacture, which otherwise in common parlance would not be considered as manufacture. The contention of the appellant that unless the content of Ores improves, the resultant cannot be called as a concentrates and accordingly the physical/mechanical processes carried out by them like washing, magnetic separation, gravity separation etc. to sand Ores would not fall under the definition of manufacture, in our opinion, is the result of misunderstanding and incorrect interpretation of the relevant tariff entry, the chapter note 4 and clause (ii) of Sec.2(f) of CEA,1944. In view of the judgements of this Tribunal if on application of processes on Ores sand its purity/content increases and its use, commercial identity and character is different from the ore, then the resultant would be considered as manufactured and accordingly dutiable. Therefore, in absence of an increase in the purity content by any method, if there cannot be a manufacturing process, the chapter note 4 inserted with effect from 01.3. 2011 defeat the very purposes and becomes otiose. Such a situation, in our opinion, cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, in our considered opinion application of various processes to ore sand, converts it into concentrates and accordingly in view of the chapter note 4 of chapter 26 beco to manufacture. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the Appellant that the processes carried out by them results into obtaining mineral ores and not concentrates unless some special treatment, is carried out on the sand ores to improve the mineral content so as to call the resultant as ore concentrates and the Tribunal earlier in their case had observed that application of the very same processes to sand Ores had not resulted into concentrates, accordingly, no manufacture took place.

5.8 The next decision on which heavy reliance was placed is CCE vs. SAIL. In that case the mined Ores were subjected to the process of crushing, grinding, screening and washing. This Tribunal referring to the HSN Explanatory Notes, following its earlier decision in Indian Rare Earth Ltd.s case and other materials recorded as:-
6.We have? considered the submissions of both the sides. Heading 26.01 of the Central Excise Tariff applies to Iron Ore and concentrates, including roasted iron by rites. The Revenue wants to levy duty on the ground that the mined iron ore is subjected to crushing, grinding, screening and washing and it becomes iron ore concentrate which is covered by Heading 26.01 of the Tariff. The Revenue has placed heavy reliance on the Explanatory Notes of HSN according to which the term concentrates applies to ores which have had part or all of the foreign matter removed by special treatment. On the other hand the Respondents have contended that the processes undertaken by them do not convert iron ore into iron ore concentrates as no special treatments are undertaken by them nor Fe content increases after the processes undertaken by them. The learned Advocate for the Respondents has emphatically contended that the activities of crushing, grinding, screening and washing do not amount to manufacture of any goods attracting levy of Central Excise duty. It is settled law that the activity or process in order to amount to manufacture must lead to emergence of a new commercial product, different from the one with which the process started. In the landmark judgment in the case of U.O.I. v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) (S.C.), the Apex Court has held that manufacture is generally understood to mean as bringing into existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in a substance. The Court has held that ... something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. The Supreme Court has laid down a two fold test for determining whether the process is that of manufacture in J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) as under :
First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; Secondly, whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose but for the said process. In other words, whether the commodity, which was already in existence, will be of no commercial use but for the said process. ?7. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court we observe that the process undertaken by the respondents remove extraneous, unwanted material from the ore and as such is devoid of gangue which adheres to the blasted ores. From this it has been claimed by the Revenue that the constituents of the final product are distinctly different from that of the blasted ore. The Revenue then applying the Explanatory Notes of HSN has come to the conclusion that iron ore has become a new commodity known as iron ore concentrates which is no more exempted from payment of duty as Notification No. 19/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88 has been rescinded by Notification No. 19/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. We find ourselves unable to agree with the Revenue that on account of the processes undertaken by the Respondents, a new and different article has emerged on which Central Excise duty can be levied and collected. Even according to HSN the term concentrates applies to ores which have had part or all of the foreign matters removed either because such foreign matter might hamper subsequent metallurgical operations or with a view to economical transport. In our view, removing of foreign matters would not, in the present matter, bring into existence a new and different article having a distinctive name, character or use. The use of iron ore as mined or iron ore after the process undertaken by the respondents remains same that is to be used in metallurgical industry for the extraction of metals. In Indian Rare Earths case, supra, the Appellants were removing gangue materials from the sand. It has been held by this Tribunal that at the end of the processes, the mineral sands do not undergo any transformation. They remain the same condition in which they remained along with ordinary sand on the sea beach. No upgradation or augmentation of their purity takes place. The Chemical structure of the ore remained the same. The processes are not any special treatment which would take the ores out of the stage of plain and simple ores. The learned Advocate has also relied upon the decision in the case of Super Engineering Co. 1996 (82) E.L.T. 539 wherein the Tribunal has held that the process of pulverizing, washing and cleaning of brass/ash does not result into emergence of a new marketable commodity with a separate, distinct name having separate physical, chemical composition or characteristic. Similar views were expressed in the case of Seth Liladhar Biyani & Sons v. CCE Jaipur, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 423 (T) relied upon by the learned Advocate. In view of this we hold that the processes undertaken by the Respondents do not result in the manufacture of a different commercial commodity. Hence no Central Excise duty is leviable. Accordingly, all the appeals are rejected.
5.14 In order to find an answer, whether application of processes to sand Ores results into  Ore concentrate it is necessary to understand the meaning of the words, namely, ores & concentrates.
5.15 The ores has been defined under chapter note 2 of Chapter 26 of CETA,1985 which reads as follows:-
2. For the purposes of headings 2601 to 2617, the t