COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SICGIL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 through pipeline from various fertiliser units. The period of dispute is July 1995 to February 1997.

(2.) We have examined the records and heard both sides.

(3.) Ld. SDR reiterates the grounds of this appeal. The only substantive ground raised by the Revenue is that note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, which was inserted on 1.5.97, is clarificatory and hence retrospective. According to the said Chapter Note, in relation to products (like Carbon dioxide) of Chapter 28, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to "manufacture". Ld. SDR argues that, as the gas gets purified in the course of compression, the process would come within the meaning of "any other treatment" mentioned in Chapter Note 10. If the Chapter Note is held to be clarificatory, it will have retrospective effect and, consequently, the goods in question would become excisable. This argument does not hold goods 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.