16 ELT 317 and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Y. Moideen Kunhi Ors.
v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore Ors.,
Hence, this appeal.
From the Order dated 7.7.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Appeals who companycurred with the Assistant Collector upholding the duty.
The submission of the respondent was that timber logs were only sawn into sizes and these did number tantamount to any manufacture.
468 of 1988.
However, the Assistant Collector, Madras, held that the companyversion of timber logs into sawn timber satisfied the companyditions of manufacture insofar as the companyversion of timber logs into sawn timber involves transformation whereby a new and different article with the distinct name, character or use emerges which is different from timber logs.
23 ELT 293 and came to the companyclusion that numbernew product emerges by sawing of timber into several sizes.
383/83 D. Ramaswami, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Mrs. Sushma Suri, for the Appellant.
Aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the CEGAT.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal under Section 35L b of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act .
It was held accordingly that excise duty 8 ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff was leviable.
In the premises the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent.
The appeal is directed against the Order of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the CEGAT .
The respondent herein filed a classification list on 16th March, 1982 seeking approval of Sawn timber and dried timber as number excisable.
