JUDGMENT

PARIPOORNAN, J.:- This is an appeal filed by an assessee against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 11-11-1983, under Section 35-L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondents represent the revenue. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether a duty of excise was validly levied on "PVC compound" produced by the appellant from out of the duty paid PVC resin. The levy of duty relates to the period from 18-6-1977 to 28-6-1977. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, by his order dated 28-7-1978, held that the PVC compound in the form of granules produced by the assessee were eligible to duty for the period from 18-6-1977 to 28-6-1977, under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He allowed set off in respect of the duty paid on PVC resins and used in the production of PVC compound. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, by his order dated 28-8-1979, held that the appellant manufactured PVC compound (granule) for insulation of their products, electric wires and cables, and the resultant PVC compound is a new product having different use than that of PVC resins and the processes undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. He held that PVC compound would fall under sub-item(ii) of item 15A(1) and excise duty is accordingly leviable. In Second Appeal, filed by the assessee, the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by a majority held that the appellant purchased PVC resins and what they produced is PVC compound or moulding granules, and though, no polymerisation or co-polymerisation results nor any changes in the structural identity of the polymer molecules, the conversion of PVC resins into PVC compound by the process employed by the appellant amounts to manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. It was further held that goods so manufactured by the appellant will fall for classification under item 15A(1) (ii) of the Act. The Judicial Member in his dissenting order took the view that the change in form from PVC resins to PVC compound or moulding granules, does not amount to "manufacture" and the process employed is of no significance, and there is no legislative intent to bring to levy the product every time, when there is a change in form. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in view ofthe majority decision. It is from the aforesaid order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the assessee has filed this appeal to this Court.

2. We heard Sri A. K. Ganguli, Senior Counsel, who appeared for the appellant (assessee) and also Sri Joseph Vellapalli, Senior Counsel, who appeared for the respondents - revenue. The arguments advanced before us covered a wide field. Sri A. K. Ganguli argued that the appellants are manufacturers of electric wires and cables and they produce among other things a substance known as PVC compound (granule) out of duty paid PVC resins. During the material time, namely, 13-6-1977 to 28-6-1977, they manufactured 31 M.Ts. of PVC compound and removed the same for captive consumption within the factory. The PVC compound or granules produced out of duty paid PVC resins is only a modified form of PVC resins and the same cannot be called different goods commercially. The PVC compound in the form of granules, is not a marketable commodity, and that there is no finding of any statutory authority that it is otherwise. Even if the finding of the statutory authorities to the effect that the PVC compound in the form of granules produced by the appellants is a distinct and different commodity and the process employed by the assessee amounts to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act is justified, it will not attract "excise duty", unless it is further found that the commodity namely, PVC comp