ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. In this appeal of the department, the challenge is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that no “manufacture” was involved in the respondents’ process of compressing and bottling of Carbon dioxide through pipeline from various fertiliser units. The period of dispute is July 1995 to February 1997.
2. We have examined the records and heard both sides.
3. Ld. SDR reiterates the grounds of this appeal. The only substantive ground raised by the Revenue is that note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, which was inserted on 1.5.97, is clarificatory and hence retrospective. According to the said Chapter Note, in relation to products (like Carbon dioxide) of Chapter 28, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to “manufacture”. Ld. SDR argues that, as the gas gets purified in the course of compression, the process would come within the meaning of “any other treatment” mentioned in Chapter Note 10. If the Chapter Note is held to be clarificatory, it will have retrospective effect and, consequently, the goods in question would become excisable. This argument does not hold goods inasmuch as the appeal memo itself states that the Chapter Note was introduced with effect from 1.5.1997. That the Note has only prospective operation having been conceded by the appellant, we need not labour on the point.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, rendered in their own case. The cited judgment is in Tax Case No. 265 of 1990 and the same held as under:
“We have noticed that Carbon dioxide remains Carbon dioxide at the hands of the petitioners notwithstanding removal of compressed Carbon-dioxide known as such, to the commercial community and therefore cannot attract item 14 H in the first Schedule.”
The Hon’ble High Court was dealing with taxability of the compressed gas under an entry in the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. However, its finding quoted above is squarely relevant for the instant purpose. The finding is that Carbon dioxide gas remains as such and known as such in commercial parlance even after its compression. It is pertinent to note that the High Court’s finding of fact is the relation to the goods in question, which we are dealing with. Following the finding of the Hon’ble High Court, we hold that the process undertaken by the respondents did not amount to “manufacture” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and consequently the goods in question was not excisable. The impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is rejected.