(i) The Collector has failed to take legal notice of the fact that the notification in question is specific for 'Carbonic Acid' which according to Webster's New World Dictionary refers to a weak, colourless acid formed by solution of carbon dioxide in water whereas the dry ice (used by the party) is referred to as carbon dioxide solidified and compressed into snow-like cakes, used as a refrigerant. In other words, when CO2 is compressed to high pressure and subsequently so cooled, it condenses into liquid CO2. On releasing the pressure, liquid CO2 solidifies. It is called dry ice because on being warmed it vaporises directly into a gas. The dry ice is, therefore, not the same as carbonic acid. The dry ice remained classifiable under the then TI 14H as the entry covered gases including liquified or solidified gases but the exemption notification was only confined to carbonic acid. Therefore, the notification no. 7/65-C.E. dated 30.1.65 was not applicable in the instant case.

(ii) Assuming that the notification in question is applicable to dry ice, the Collector failed to take legal notice of the fact that the use of CO2 gas for food preservation in transit or prior to export in trucks/railway wagon could not be considered for industrial use and that, therefore, carbon dioxide used for transportation of meat, would not qualify for exemption under notification no. 7/65-C.E. ibid.

Hence, this appeal of the Revenue before us.

2. Ld. SDR Shri Satnam Singh has reiterated the aforesaid two grounds set out in detail above.

3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced by the Ld. SDR. We have also gone through the appeal memo and the Board's order. We observe that the point no. 1 raised by the CBEC in its order dt. 27.3.92 does not arise out of the impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector. It is a new point taken by the Board. It was not a part of the show cause notice initially issued to the respondents herein. Therefore, this point cannot be raised and cannot therefore be considered by us. As regards the second point, we observe that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing and selling of meat and meat products. Industrial use does not cease only with the production in the factory. Since this is a business activity undertaken by the respondents they are required to sell their production. Therefore, the activity undertaken by them for the purpose of marketing their products will also be covered by the expression "industrial use" referred to in notification 7/65-CE. We are therefore in agreement with the views taken by the adjudicating authority that the respondents herein would be entitled to the benefit of notification 7/65-CE for dry ice used by them for preservation of meat during the course of transportation and sale of the goods manufactured by the appellants. I