2014 (3) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant is to be accepted that the machinery as being manufactured by them is capable of converting hard water into soft water and water laden with minerals, impurities into usable water, one may not be able to say the machinery is not capable of production of a commodity . The claim of the appellant is for exemption under Section 5 of the Act. A perusal of the table would indicate the exemption is basically product specific and wherever the legislature thought it fit to impose a condition they have done so. - there is no qualifying word before the commodity as a ‘marketable commodity’. In other words, if the machinery is capable of production of a commodity, the exemption notification would have to be given effect. Matter remande .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... view that the machinery manufactured by the appellant is useful only in improving the efficiency of the equipment by treating the ordinary water and converting the same into treated water. In that view of the matter, as per the Department, there is no commodity manufactured as understood in terms of Section 2-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act ). The contention of the appellant all through is that the ordinary water and also the mineral laden water, on treatment with the machinery manufactured by the appellant, is different and distinct in character and though in general terms, it may remain as water but in the specific industry, the same is accepted as distinct product. For example; sewerage water converted into potable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mption is basically product specific and wherever the legislature thought it fit to impose a condition they have done so. In the present case, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the Department that the machinery is not capable of manufacturing a product by producing a commodity as understood in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. He would submit that processing of the water may not be termed as manufacturing . While, we may be able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the Department that mere processing may not by itself could be called as manufacturing, we should not loose site of the fact, the word production has a wider meaning than the word manufacture. This has been recognised by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X