Judgment :- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ ofMandamusforbearing the Respondents herein from applying the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Petitioner pursuant to the Notice O.C. No. 1306/85/etc, dated 20-8-1985. ORDER: This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court, dated 6-9-1985 and made herein, and the records relating to the prayer the aforesaid and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, on behalf of the Respondents, the Court made the following Order :- The petitioner is a saw mill and it was issued with a show cause notice by the Superintendent of Central Excise, asking it to file a declaration under Notification 2/81 dated 17-1-1981 as amended and read with Notification 85/85-C.E. dated 17-6-1985 for duty exemption and also for exemption from licensing control. The petitioner has also submitted its representation stating that it is not liable to pay excise duty and also claiming exemption from licensing control. Apprehending that an order prejudicial to it may be passed, it filed this writ petition praying for aMandamusto forbear the respondents from applying the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the petitioner, pursuant to the notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. 2.During the pendency of this writ petition, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider this question as to whether any manufacturing process is involved when timber logs are cut into sawn timber. In the decision reported inCollector, C.E; Madrasv. 2.During the pendency of this writ petition, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider this question as to whether any manufacturing process is involved when timber logs are cut into sawn timber. In the decision reported inCollector, C.E; Madrasv. M/s Kutty F.D. & F. Co.(P) Ltd., 1988 AIR(SC) 1164, 1988 CrLR(SC) 329, 1988 (17) ECR 68, 1988 (35) ELT 6 , 1988 (2) JT 93 , 1988 (70) STC 314, 1988 (1) Scale 705 , 1988 (S) SCC 239, 1988 (3) SCR 363 , 1988 CRLR 329, 1988 (17) ECC 37, 1988 SSCC 239 = 1988 AIR(SC) 1164, 1988 CrLR(SC) 329, 1988 (17) ECR 68, 1988 (35) ELT 6 , 1988 (2) JT 93 , 1988 (70) STC 314, 1988 (1) Scale 705 , 1988 (S) SCC 239, 1988 (3) SCR 363 , 1988 CRLR 329, 1988 (17) ECC 37, 1988 SSCC 239 (SC)] the Supreme Court held that the word 'Manufacture' would imply a change, but, every change is not a manufacture and manufacturing process would be involved only when there is a transformation, when a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or use. In this view, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner therein was entitled to exemption and Tariff Item 68 would not be attracted. Since the petitioner has already submitted its representation, it is for the respondents to pass orders in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court already referred to. 3.The writ petition is disposed of in the above manner. No order as to costs.