Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
The question is whether this would amount to manufacture or not. The judgment referred by both parties in this connection is Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited v. Union of India 1980 ELT 735 (Delhi). No doubt, that case dealt with a process wherein apart from crushing the rocks for separating the asbestos fibre therefrom, a further process was also carried on to separate the fibres through air suction method. The fibre so separated by that method was used for being spun into fabrics or similar materials thereafter. In the present case, the pulverised powder is sieved to separate asbestos fluff from asbestos powder, neither fluff nor powder being capable of being spun thereafter. But this distinction does not make the ratio of the Delhi High Court inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the Delhi High Court had held that asbestos rock was not saleable in the market as such and that several processes were applied to the same thereafter to crush and pulverise the same and later separate the asbestos fibre from the rock particles. It was held that such a process resulting in the production of the asbestos fibre from the mined asbestos rock amounted to manufacture. In the present case also the mined asbestos rock is admittedly crushed, pulveriseq" and then sieved in order to separate asbestos fluff and asbestos powder from the rock particles. Thereafter in the present case also a definite commercial commodity emerges out of the process adopted by the respondent and is distinct from the original product mined from the quarries. Therefore, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court decision, we are satisfied that the process adopted by the respondents amounted to manufacture and the contention of the respondent to the contrary is to be rejected.