M/S. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

                    [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 866

A           MIS. AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD.
                                   v.
          COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I
                (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2005)

B                         AUGUST 30, 2011
               [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                         ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

          Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter 28 -
C   Manufacture - Appellant purchased Helium gas from the
    market in bulk and repacked the same into smaller cylinders
    after giving different grades to it and then sold the same in
    the open market- Whether the treatment given or the process
    undertaken by the appellant to Helium gas purchased by it
D   from the open market amounted to manufacture, rendering
    the goods liable to duty under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter
    28 of the Act - Held: If a product/commodity, after some
    process is undertaken or treatment ir; given, assumes a
    distinct marketability, different than its original marketability,
E   then it can be said that such process undertaken or treatment
    given to confer such distinct marketability would amount to
    "manufacture" in terms of Chapter note 10 to Chapter 28 of
    the Act - Appellant purchased Helium gas under a generic
    description but after the tests and analysis, sold it to different
F   customers based on their specific requirements at profit
    margin ranging from 40% to 60% in different cylinders -The
    various tests resulted into categorization of the gas into
    different grades - The appellant supplied the gas not as such
    and under the grade and style of the original manufacturer
G   but under its own grade and standard - Further, while selling
    the gas, different cylinders were given separate certificates with
    regard to the pressure, moisture, purification and quality of the
    gas - This explains the high price at which the appellant was
    selling the gas - The Tribunal rightly observed that if no
H                                 866
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,     867
               CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

treatment was given to the gas purchased by the appellant,      A
customers of the appellant would not have been purchasing
Helium from the appellant at a price 40% to 60% above the
price at which the appellant was purchasing - Appellant is
liable to pay excise duty for the reason that it manufactured
Helium within the meaning of the term 'manufacture' as          B
explained in terms of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the
Act - Though the Helium purchased by the appellant was in
a marketable state but by giving different treatment and
purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a
commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity   c
which would suit a particular purpose - Thus, the treatment
given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a
different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be
said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing
activity.                                                       o
     The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of
Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon-di-oxide and other gases
classifiable under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985. The appellant purchased Helium gas from the
market in bulk and repacked the same into smaller               E
cylinders after giving different grades to it and then sold
the same in the open market. The adjudicating authorities
held that the processes undertaken by the appellants
amounted to manufacture and consequently confirmed
demand with penalty. The order was set aside by the             F
Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, the respondent-
Department filed appeal before the Customs, Excise &
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which allowed the same
holding that the process undertaken or the treatment
given by the appellant amounted to "manufacture" in             G
terms of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act.

    In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that it
had only conducted various tests like moisture test, etc.
to determine quality and quantity of Helium gas in the
                                                                H
    868   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A cylinders; and that even after the activity of testing,
  Helium gas remained as Helium gas only and no new
  product, other than Helium gas came into existence and,
  therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had carried
  on any manufacturing activity. The appellant further
B contended that the gas, when purchased by the appellant,
  was already marketable and, therefore, the process of
  testing of the gas by the appellant cannot be said to be
  a manufacturing process, rendering the product
  marketable.
c        The appellant claimed that the issuance of certificate
    along with the cylinder at the time of sale did not amount
    to re-labelling and also that as there was no suppression
    of facts of any sort on the part of the appellant, extended
    period of limitation could not have been invoked.
0
       Per contra, the respondent submitted that the testing
  of Helium gas came under the category of "treatment" as
  mentioned in Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act
  and the Tribunal clearly gave a finding to that effect; that
E issuance of a separate certificate along with cylinder at
  the time of sale containing all the details regarding
  moisture, purification, etc. amounted to re-labelling of the
  gas cylinders; and also that the revenue authorities were
  fully justified in invoking the extended period of limitation
F as there had been willful suppression of facts on the part
  of the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty.

      The issue that therefore arose for consideration in the
  instant appeal was whether the treatment given or the
  process undertaken by the appellant to Helium gas
G purchased by it from the open market amounted to
  manufacture, rendering the goods liable to duty under
  Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff
  Act, 1985.

H
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,     869
               CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court                           A
     HELD: 1.1. In view of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28
of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the manufacturing
activity would mean either; a) labelling or re-labelling of
containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs;      8
or b) an adoption of any other treatment to render the
product marketable to the consumer. Thus, either an
activity of labellirrg or relabelling of containers and
repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or adoption of
any treatment so as to render the product marketable to        C
the consumer would amount to "manufacture". [Paras 8,
9] [876-D-E]

     1.2. The appellant had purchased Helium gas from the
open market and its quality control officer had conducted
various tests and issued analysis report/quality test report   D
stating the results of the tests carried out. The appellant
issued certificates of quality at the time of sale on the
basis of tests carried out by it to the effect that the gas
supplied by it confirmed a level of purity and
specifications in conformation with the orders of the          E
customers. The appellant had purchased Helium gas
under a generic description but after the tests and
analysis, it was sold to different customers based on their
specific requirements at profit margin ranging from 40%
to 60% in different cylinders. [Para 10] [876-F-H; 877-A]      F

      1.3. When the appellant was asked about the process
which was being carried out on Helium gas before selling
it to its customers, the representative of the appellant had
refused to give any detail with regard to the process
because, according to him, that process was a trade            G
secret and he would not like to reveal the same. Thus, the
respondent or his subordinate authorities were not
informed as to what was being done by the appellant to
Helium gas purchased or' what treatment was given to the
                                                               H
    870   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R.

A said gas before selling the same to different customers
  at different rates with different certifications in different
  containers/cylinders. [Para 11] (877-B-D]

       1.4. From the facts, it is clear that the gas cylinders
  were not sold as such but they were sold only after
8
  certain tests or processes as specified by the customers
  of the appellant. It is also clear that only after the analysis
  and tests, it could be ascertained as to whom the gas was
  to be supplied and at what rate. The various tests
C resulted into categorization of the gas into different
  grades namely, Helium label 4, high purity Helium and
  Helium of technical grade. Helium label 4 was sold at
  higher rate as it matched superior standards. (Para 12]
  [877-E-F]

D      1.5. In the instant case, Helium gas was having
  different marketability, which it did not possess earlier
  and hence the gas sold by the appellant was a distinct
  commercial commodity in the trade, rendering it liable to
  duty under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act. If
E the product/commodity, after some process is undertaken
  or treatment is given, assumes a distinct marketability,
  different than its original marketability, then it can be said
  that such process undertaken or treatment given to
  confer such distinct marketability would amount to
F "manufacture" in terms of Chapter note 10 to Chapter 28
  of the Act. [Para 13] (877-G-H; 878-A] .

       1.6. The tests and "process" conducted by the
  appellant would amount to "treatment" in terms of
  Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act. The fact that
G the gas was not sold as such is further established from
  the fact that the gas, after the tests and treatment, was
  sold at a profit of 40% to 60%. If it was really being sold
  as such, then the customers of the appellants could have
  purchased the same from the appellant's suppliers. When
H this question was put to the officer of the appellant, he
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,   8 71
               CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

could not offer any cogent answer but merely stated that A
it was the customers' preference. Further, he did not give
proper answer as to how the profit margin was so high.
The appellant had supplied the gas not as such and under
the grade and style of the original manufacturer but under
its own grade and standard. Further, while selling the gas, B
different cylinders were given separate certificates with
regard to the pressure, moisture, purification and quality
of the gas. This explains the high price at which the
appellant was selling the gas. The Tribunal rightly
observed that if no treatment was given to the gas c ,
purchased by the appellant, customers of the appellant
would not have been purchasing Helium from the
appellant at a price 40% to 60% above the price at which
the appellant was purchasing. In the circumstances, it
cannot be said that no treatment was given to the gas D
purchased by the appellant. For the said reasons, it
cannot be said that the appellant was not carrying out any
manufacturing activity within the meaning of Chapter,
Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act. [Paras 14, 15, 17] [878-
B-F-H; 879-A]
                                                            E
     1.7. It is also pertinent to elucidate on the phrase
"marketable to the consumer". The word "consumer" in
this clause refers to the person who purchases the
product for his consumption, as distinct from a purchaser
who trades in it. The marketability of the product to "the F
purchaser trading in it" is distinguishable from the
marketability of the product to "the purchaser _purchasing
the same for final consumption" as in the latter case, the
person purchases the product for his own consumption
and in that case, he expects the product to be suitable G
for his own purpose and the consumer might purchase
a product having marketability, which it did not possess
earlier. Therefore, the phrase "marketable to the
consumer" would naturally mean the marketability of the
product to "the person who purchases the product for H
    872     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A his own consumption". Hence, the argument of the
  appellant that as the product was already marketable, the
  provisions of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act
  would not be attracted, will have to be rejected. [Paras 18,
  19] [879-B-E]
B
      1.8. The appellant is liable to pay excise duty for the
  reason that it has manufactured Helium within the
  meaning of the term 'manufacture' as explained in terms
  of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act. [Para 20]
C [879-F]

        CCE v. Lupin Laboratories 2004 (166) A116 (SC) and
    Lakme Lever Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 790 (T) - cited.

       2. So far as the issue with regard to re-labelling is
o concerned, the Tribunal rightly held that re-labelling
  would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the
  appellant was selling different cylinders with different
  marking or different certificates to its different customers,
  the appellant was virtually giving different marks or
E different labels to different cylinders having different
  quality and quantity of gas. Though the Helium
  purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but
  by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the
  appellant was manufacturing a commercially different
  type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit
F a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the
  appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different
  commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said
  that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing
  activity. [Paras 21, 22] [879-G-H; 880-A-B]
G
          BOC (/) Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (160) ELT 864 - cited.

      3. So far as the issue with regard to limitation is
  concerned, the Tribunal rightly arrived at the finding that
H the appellant did not disclose details about the activities
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,     873
               CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

or treatment given to the gas by the appellant. No duty A
was ever paid by the appellant on the Helium sold by it
after giving some treatment so as to make it a different
commercial product. Therefore, there is no reason to
interfere with the finding with regard to limitation also.
[Para 23] [BBO-C-D]                                        B
                     Case Law Reference:
    2004 (166) A116 (SC)            cited          Para 5
    2001 (127) ELT 790 (T)          cited          Para 5
                                                                c
    2003 (160) ELT 864              cited          Para 6
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 43
of 2005.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 31.8.2004 of the D
Customs, Excise New Delhi in Appeal No. E/247/04-NB (C).
    Alok Yadav for the Appellant.

     R.P. Bhatt, Sunita Rani Singh, B.K. Prasad, Rajiv Nanda,   E
Anil Katiyar for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against
the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2004 passed in Final Order F
No 595/2004-NB(C) by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/247/2004-
NB(C), whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by
the Department and reversed the findings of the
Commissioner(Appeals).                                       G
     2. The issue which falls for consideration in the present
appeal is whether the treatment given or the process
undertaken by the appellant to Helium gas purchased by it from
the open market would amount to manufacture, rendering the
goods liable to duty under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of H
    874     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A   the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
    'the Act'). Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act, in relation
    to 'manufacture', reads as under:

          "10. In relation to products of this chapter, labelling or
          relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to
B
          retail packs or adoption of any other treatment to render
          the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to
          manufacture."

       In order to answer the aforesaid issue which arises for our
C consideration, it would be necessary to set out some facts
  giving rise to the present appeal. The appellant is engaged in
  the manufacture of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon-di-oxide and
  other gases classifiable under Chapter 28 of the Act. The
  appellant had purchased Helium gas during the period
D commencing from December, 1998 to 31st March, 2001, from
  the market in bulk and repacked the same into smaller cylinders
  after giving different grades to it and then sold the same in the
  open market. The appellant purchased the said gas for Rs.520/
  - per Cum. Various tests were conducted on the gas so
E purchased and on the basis of the tests and some treatment
  given, the gas was segregated into different grades having
  distinct properties and sold at different rates to different
  customers.

F       3. The adjudicating authorities held that these processes
  undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture and
  consequently confirmed the demand with penalty. An appeal
  filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was
  allowed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the Department
  before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its impugned judgment
G held that the process undertaken or the treatment given by the
  appellant amounted to "manufacture" in terms of Chapter Note
  10 of Chapter 28 of the Act. The aforesaid conclusion arrived
  at by the Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal.

H         4. On behalf of the appellant it was vehemently argued that
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIAPVf LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,          875
       CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

the appellant had only conducted various tests like moisture A
test, etc. to determine quality and quantity of Helium gas in the
cylinders. It was further submitted that even after the activity of
testing, Helium gas remained as Helium gas only and there was
no change in the chemical or physical properties. No new
product, other than Helium gas came into existence and, B
therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had carried on
any manufacturing activity.

      5. It was further submitted that the gas, when purchased
 by the appellant, was already marketable and, therefore, it
cannot be said that the testing of the gas by the appellant had C
rendered the product marketable. In the circumstances, the
process of testing cannot be said to be a manufacturing
process, rendering the product marketable. It was also
submitted that the crucial requirement for the application of the
last portion of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act is that D
by adoption of some treatment, the product should become
marketable to the consumer. According to the learned counsel,
the product, i.e. Helium gas was already in a marketable state
when it was purchased by the appellant and, therefore, it cannot
be said that the appellant made it marketable. To substantiate E
his claim, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the
cases of CCE v. LUPIN LABORATORIES 2004 (166) A116
(SC) and LAKME LEVER LTD. v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 790
(T).
                                                                  F
      6. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our
attention a decision of this Court rendered in the case of BOC
(I) Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (160) ELT 864 to substantiate his claim
that the issuance of certificate along with the cylinder at the time
of sale does not amount to re-labelling. He also contended that G
as there was no suppression of facts of any sort on the part of
the appellant, extended period of limitation could not have been
invoked in the present case.

    7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
                                                                  H
    876    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) SC R


A submitted that the testing of Helium gas comes under the
  category of "treatment" as mentioned in Chapter Note 10 of
  Chapter 28 of the Act and that the Tribunal has clearly given a
  finding to that effect. He also submitted that issuance of a
  separate certificate along with cylinder at the time of sale
B containing all the details regarding moisture, purification, etc.
  amounted to re-labelling of the gas cylinders. He also submitted
  that the revenue authorities were fully justified in invoking the
  extended period of limitation as there had been willful
  suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with an intent
C to evade payment of duty.

         8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    perused the records. In view of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28
    of the Act, the manufacturing activity would mean either;

D         (a)   Labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking
                from bulk packs to retail packs; OR

          (b)   An adoption of any other treatment to render the
                product marketable to the consumer.

E       9. Thus, either an activity of labelling or relabelling of
    containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs OR
    adoption of any treatment so as to render the product
    marketable to the consumer would amount to "manufacture".

F      10. It is not in dispute that the appellant had purchased
  Helium gas from the open market and that its quality control
  officer had conducted various tests and issued analysis report/
  quality test report stating the results of the tests carried out. It
  is also not in dispute that the appellant issued certificates of
G quality at the time of sale on the basis of tests carried out by it
  to the effect that the gas supplied by it confirmed a level of purity
  and specifications in conformation with the orders of the
  customers. Another undisputed fact is that the appellant had
  purchased Helium gas under a generic description but after the
H tests and analysis, it was sold to different customers based on
   AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,             877
        CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [ANIL R DAVE, J.]

their specific requirements at profit margin ranging from 40%            A
to 60% in different cylinders.              ,

      11. It is pertinent to note that when the appellant was
asked about the process which was being carried out on
Helium gas before selling it to its customers, the representative
                                                                         B
of the appellant had refused to give any detail with regard to
the process because, according to him, that process was a
trade secret and he would not like to reveal the same. Thus,
the respondent or his subordinate authorities were not informed
as to what was being done by the appellant to Helium gas
purchased or what treatment was given to the said gas before             C
selling the same to different customers at different rates with
different certifications in different containers/cylinders. It is also
pertinent to note that the gas which was purchased at the rate
of about Rs.520/- per Cum. was sold by the appellant at three
different rates namely Rs.700/-, Rs.826/- and Rs.1000/- per              D
Cum. and thereby the appellant used to get 40% to 60% profit.

      12. From the above undisputed facts, it is clear that the
gas cylinders were not sold as such but they were sold only after
certain tests or processes as specified by the customers of the          E
appellant. It is also clear that only after the analysis and tests,
it could be ascertained as to whom the gas was to be supplied
and at what rate. The various tests resulted into categorization
of the gas into different grades namely, Helium label 4, high
purity Helium and Helium of technical grade. Helium label 4 was
                                                                         F
sold at higher rate as it matched superior standards.

     13. In the instant case, Helium gas was having different
marketability, which it did not possess earlier and hence the
gas sold by the appellant was a distinct commercial commodity
in the trade, rendering it liable to duty under Chapter Note 10          G
of Chapter 28 of the Act. If the product/commodity, after some
process is undertaken or treatment is given, assumes a distinct
marketability, different than its original marketability, then it can
be said that such process undertaken or treatment given to
confer such distinct marketability would amount to                       H
    878   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A "manufacture" in terms of Chapter note 10 to Chapter 28 of the
  Act.

       14. The only conclusion from the above is that the tests and
  "process" conducted by the appellant would amount to
B "treatment" in terms of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the
  Act. The fact that the gas was not sold as such is further
  established from the fact that the gas, after the tests and
  treatment, was sold at a profit of 40% to 60%. If it was really
  being sold as such, then the customers of the appellants could
  have purchased the same from the appellant's suppliers. When
C this question was put to the officer of the appellant, he could
  not offer any cogent answer but merely stated that it was the
  customers' preference. Further, he did not give proper answer
  as to how the profit margin was so high. The appellant had
  supplied the gas not as such and under the grade and style of
D the original manufacturer but under its own grade and standard.
  Further, while selling the gas, different cylinders were given
  separate certificates with regard to the pressure, moisture,
  purification and quality of the gas. This explains the high price
  at which the appellant was selling the gas.
E
       15. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly
  observed that if no treatment was given to the gas purchased
  by the appellant, customers of the appellant would not have
  been purchasing Helium from the appellant at a price 40% to
F 60% above the price at which the appellant was purchasing.

        16. As stated hereinabove, it is clear that the appellant was
  purchasing Helium at the rate of Rs.520/- per Cum. and was
  selling the same after adding 40% to 60% profit. Further, the
  gas was segregated in different cylinders with different
G properties and, therefore, the rate at which the gas was
  purchased by the appellant and the rate at which it was sold to
  its customers was substantially different.

      17. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that no treatment
H was given to the gas purchased by the appellant. For the said
  AIR LIQUIDE NORTH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER,          879
        CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [ANIL R. DAVE, J]

reasons, it cannot be said that the appellant was not carrying        A
out any manufacturing activity within the meaning of Chapter
Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act.

      18. It is also pertinent to elucidate on the phrase
"marketable to the consumer". The word "consumer" in this
                                                                  8
clause refers to the person who purchases the product for his
consumption, as distinct from a purchaser who trades in it. The
marketability of the product to "the purchaser trading in it" is
distinguishable from the marketability of the product to "the
purchaser purchasing the same for final consumption" as in the C
latter case, the person purchases the product for his own
consumption and in that case, he expects the product to be
suitable for his own purpose and the consumer might purchase
a product having marketability, which it did not possess earlier.

     19. Therefore, the phrase "marketable to the consumer" D
would naturally mean the marketability of the product to "the
person who purchases the product for his own consumption".
Hence, the argument of the appellant that as the product was
already marketable, the provisions of Chapter Note 10 of
Chapter 28 of the Act would not be attracted, will have to be E
rejected.

      20. For the aforetasted reasons, we agree with the
Tribunal in holding that the appellant is liable to pay excise duty
for the reason that it has manufactured Helium within the
meaning of the term 'manufacture' as explained in terms of            F
Chapter Note 1O of Chapter 28 of the Act.

     21. So far as the issue with regard to relabelling is
concerned, we are in agreement with the view expressed by
the Tribunal that relabelling would not mean mere fixing of G
another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders
with different marking or different certificates to its different
customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving
different marks or different labels to different cylinders having
different quality and quantity of gas.                            H
    880      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S C.R.


A        22. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by
    the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that
    by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant
    was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a
    new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose.
s   Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it
    would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it
    can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a
    manufacturing activity.

        23. So far as the issue with regard to limitation is
C concerned, we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by
  the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant did not disclose
  details about the activities or treatment given to the gas by the
  appellant. No duty was ever paid by the appellant on the Helium
  sold by it after giving some treatment so as to make it a
D different commercial product. We, therefore, do not see any
  reason to interfere with the finding with regard to limitation also.

       24. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in
  agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal and dismiss
E the appeal but without any order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.