Per Shri P.C. Jain: There is a Condonation of Delay Application from the Revenue inasmuch as communication of the impugned order was made on 29.2.88 and the Appeal was filed by the Revenue on 31.5.88. Learned JDR, Shri S.N. Ghosh appearing for the Appellant Collector submits that 29.5.88 was Sunday. Therefore, the Appeal could be filed only on 30.5.88. There is thus a delay of one day.

2. We have heard learned JDR. and having regard to the period of delay and overall facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the Application and condone the delay of one day. Thereafter, we have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Appeal.

3. Question involved in this Appeal is whether grinding of calcined bauxite and of calcined china clay would amount to a process of manufacture involving a duty liability on powdered calcined bauxite and powdered calcined china clay. Learned JDR has drawn our attention to Grounds of Appeal (Ground No.2) wherein it has been stated that the initial form of calcined bauxite and calcined china clay in which they were obtained by the Respondents herein were lumps of bauxite and lumps of china clay.

They were totally useless and the lumps as such could not be used without grinding them into powdered form for making them usable in various industries. It is, therefore. sought to be suggested that a new product having a different use has come into existence and the duty liability would, therefore, devolve on the Respondents.

4. Learned JDR Shri S.N. Ghosh, in support of the aforesaid grounds, has relied on the Tribunal's judgement in the case of Ajanta Marbles & Chemical Industries v Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991 (53) ELT 457 (Tribunal). He has also relied on the Tribunal's judgement in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Oriental Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1987 (28) ELT 147.

5. In the case of Ajanta Marbles (supra),- the Tribunal has treated the crashing and grinding of lime stones as a process of manufacture on the basis of chapter Note (2) to chapter-25, as indicated in para-4 of the said judgement. In para-9 of the said judgement, concurring note by the other Member indicates that a limestone chips and limestone powder which is obtained as a result of grinding and powdering of the limestone, brings a new product which has a new name, character and use. The same is also put to different uses, as has been recorded by the Assistant Collector on the basis of the submissions made by the Appellants.

6. In the case of Oriental Products (supra), grinding of soapstone has been also treated as a process of manufacture and has been held to be liable to duty under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.

7. In the present case, we are concerned with the new Tariff and as mentioned above concerned with the grinding of calcined bauxite and calcined china clay. The judgement of Oriental Products is of no help to us being a matter under the old Tarrif. The judgement of Ajanta Marbles, we find, is based essentially on Chapter Note (2) of Chapter (25) as also on the definite finding that the powdered or crushed limestone were known differently in the trade having a different name, character and use. In the instant case, we observe that no evidence has been brought on record by the Appellant Collector that the ground calcined bauxite and ground calcined chin a day are known differently in the trade with a different name, character and use. In other words, there is an evidence to that effect in that case that a new product - on grinding of limestone-has come into existence, having a different name, character and use. From the Grounds of Appeal, as aforesaid, we find that only a change of form has taken place to make the product usable. This, by itself, is not sufficient to hold that grinding in the present case is a process of manufacture. Consequently, we don not find any substance in the Appeal and, therefore, we reject it.