JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:—These appeals by the Revenue under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 involve the interpretation of the Notification No. 179 / 77 CE dated 18-6-1977. The Notification read thus:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all goods falling under Item 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."

2. Tariff Item 68 during the relevant period read

All other goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory but excluding......

3. 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 process of evaporation takes place some quantities of sodium sulphate present in the brine also crystallise 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 liftingthe raw materials at the kiln head, these respondents 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.

6. The Revenue being aggrieved has challenged the respective orders of the Tribunal in these appeals.

7. In both these set of cases, the view taken by the Tribunal 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 manufacturing 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.

8. It has been contended before us on behalf of the appellant that pumping the brine into the pan or 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 manufacture, the exemption would not apply. On the other hand, it is reiterated for the respondents that if the process carried 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 considered as a process of manufacture.

9. The Central Government has exempted all goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily 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 manufactured without the aid of power at any stage of the