JUDGMENT : 1. M/S. Sree Ramakrishna Soapnut Works, the appellant herein, is an assessee unit engaged in the activity of pulverising of "Shikakai Pods" into Sheekakai powder". Shikakai is a forest produce. It is used for removing oil from any substance and also for cleaning utensils and for bathing. 2. Two points arise for determination in the present civil appeal filed by the assessee M/s. Sree Ramkrishna Soapnut Works. whether the activity of pulverization of Shikakai pods into Shikakai powder amounts to manufacture. The second question which arises for determination in this case is whether the view taken in the earlier round of litigation for the duty demand made by the Department for the period prior to January 1999 stating that the above activity constituted manufacture, became res judicata and conclusive so as to apply the same law to the subsequent demand raised by the Department vide impugned show cause notice dated 16.6.1999 for the period January 1999 to March 1999. 3. Inference of 'Manufacture' under the Central Excise Act depends not only on concepts. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case it is true that in the earlier round of litigation the Karnataka High Court took the view that the activity of pulverization constituted 'manufacture'. However, that judgment of the Karnataka High Court appears to be based on a conceptual interpretation. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court is dated 3.2.1999. However, subsequent to that date Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stood amended. The word 'manufacture' after that amendment includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter Note of the Ist Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as amounting to manufacture. The amendment to Section 2 (f) introduced the words "the First Schedule" which was not there earlier when the Karnataka High Court decided the matter. 4. In our view on account of the said amendment the matter needs to be re-examined in the context of the Section Note, Chapter Note and the surrounding circumstances including the process actually undertaken by the assessee for converting Shikakai pods into Shikakai powder. Generally, mere conversion of powder may not constitute 'manufacture'. However, it will depend on the actual activity undertaken by the assessee. The matters cannot be normally decided on concepts. Generally, mere conversion of powder may not constitute 'manufacture'. However, it will depend on the actual activity undertaken by the assessee. The matters cannot be normally decided on concepts. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter needs adjudication. It cannot be decided in a writ petition. The assessee is required to exhaust the statutory remedy under the Act in such cases. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 20.7.2001. We are informed that the appellant-assessee has taken up the matter in appeal before the CESTAT. We do not wish to express any opinion on merits. However, we wish to clarify that our order is confined to the show cause notice given by the Department herein. Our order is confined to the period January 1999 to March 1999. The appellant-assessee would not be entitled to claim refund/reopen the assessment for the period prior to January 1999 and to that extent for that prior period the earlier judgment of the Karnataka High Court shall continue to operate. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.