S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, dated 20-10-1989.

2. The learned counsel stated that the appellants receive lime stone from mines. A part of this 'lime stone' is crushed in a machine in order to make 'lime fine' required for production of 'sinter'.

3. A question has arisen whether this amounts to a process of manufacture and 'lime fine' was an excisable product.

4. It was their contention that crushing of lime stones into lime fine did not amount to manufacture and lime fine was not an excisable product. Hence, no duty was leviable.

5. The impugned order proceeds on the assumption that the Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 equates the processes mentioned therein with the 'manufacture' and consequently the process of converting of any of the products covered under Heading 25.01 to 25.05 constitutes "manufacture". However, Section 2(f) as it stood prior to 28-2-1986 defined the expression "manufacture" in an inclusive manner and included any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. In the absence of any statutory definition, the expression "manufacture" was interpreted by the Supr