JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is excavating felspar quartz from the mines. The minerals so excavated were sold against form ST-17 for resale. In the years 1979-80, 1980-81, the assessing authority was of the opinion that the benefit in accordance with the notification dated March 23, 1963 read with notification dated February 13, 1976 can be availed of only by a manufacturer and excavation is not manufacturing. Therefore, the tax being payable at first point cannot be shifted to second point on the strength of declaration in form ST-17 for resale. Against this order, appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, who has allowed the appeal considering the activity as amounting to manufacture in view of the decision of the Board of Revenue. The assessing authority has filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has disbelieved the survey report of the Inspector dated August 12, 1983 and found that the Inspector has not made inquiry from the mining department as to whether the felspar and quartz requires any process to make them marketable after excavation. The statement of the mining incharge was neither taken nor the inquiry was made from other dealers and the report was prepared on the basis of signature of Harjeevan who appears to be not fully literate. The assessee was found to be manufacturer during the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. It appears that the findings which has been recorded by the assessing authority that the process of excavation does not result in any manufacturing process or the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it is a manufacturing process is without any evidence on record. The report of the Inspector was disbelieved by the Tribunal. It was proper for the Tribunal at that point of time to send the matter back to the assessing authority or to take evidence at its level and then to consider whether the products sold by the assessee would make him a manufacturer so as to entitle him to the benefit of the notification dated March 23, 1963. The extract of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, relied on shows that the mineral was cleaned, dressed and shaped into appropriate sizes in that case. There is no finding in the present case as to what process the assessee has undertaken. The extract of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, relied on shows that the mineral was cleaned, dressed and shaped into appropriate sizes in that case. There is no finding in the present case as to what process the assessee has undertaken. Pure and simple excavation does not amount to manufacture and the benefit of the notification dated March 23, 1963 cannot be availed of. If further process have been undertaken there should have been a finding given by any of the authorities which is completely lacking in the present case and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and Tribunal is directed to give the finding about the nature of the process undertaken by the assessee as to whether the same will bring the assessee in the category of manufacturer so that the benefit of notification dated March 23, 1963 can be availed of by the dealer. The Tribunal will also consider that the tax is payable only at a single point. No injustice is done to the assessee in case the department has actually received tax to avoid the double taxation. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the directions given above. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.