JUDGMENT A.K. Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of W.P. (C) No. 4418 of 2010, W.P. (C) No. 1557 of 2010, W.P. (C) No. 2384 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 24 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 3725 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 3759 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 4919 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 2558 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1491 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 5374 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1493 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 1494 of 2011, W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2008, W.P. (C) No. 5571 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 4941 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 1759 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 1761 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 2143 of 2009 and W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2009 as the issue involved in all the petitions are identical. In W.P. (C) No. 1557 of 2010, the case of the petitioner is that it applied for eligibility certificate before the District Industry and Commerce Centre, Karimganj as per Industrial Policy of Assam, 1997 and under the provision of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Scheme, 1997. After due consideration, the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Karimganj issued the eligibility certificate dated May 30, 2007 granting exemption to the petitioner from sales tax for seven years from 2000 to 2007. New Sales Tax Concession Scheme was introduced being 2005 Scheme and the petitioner applied for certificate for entitlement under the said Scheme which was granted on September 4, 2006 for the period from December 22, 2000 to March 31, 2007. 2. The Superintendent of Taxes, Karimganj, vide letter dated September 11, 2008 asked the petitioner to explain why the certificate and entitlement would not be revoked with effect from May 1, 2005, as stone crushing activities undertaken by the petitioner did not amount to "manufacturing" which was a condition precedent for grant of exemption. The petitioner offered the proposal but vide order dated June 7, 2008, certificate of entitlement granted to the petitioner has been revoked. According to the petitioner, the order is arbitrary as activities of the petitioner amount to manufacturing. Other cases are said to be identical except that in some cases no eligibility certificate has so far been granted. 3. This petition was directed to be heard along with W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2008, which is identical to the present petition. According to the petitioner, the order is arbitrary as activities of the petitioner amount to manufacturing. Other cases are said to be identical except that in some cases no eligibility certificate has so far been granted. 3. This petition was directed to be heard along with W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2008, which is identical to the present petition. In W.P. (C) No. 3854 of 2008, considering the submission made in the writ petition, notice was issued on September 5, 2008 and operation of the impugned order was stayed. However, no reply has been filed. Reply has been filed in W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2009 stating that the concession scheme was applicable on purchase of raw materials within the State and also on sale of finished products manufactured in eligible units subject to the condition that the unit in question was engaged in "manufacturing". The honourable Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC) : [2003] 1 SCC 70 observed that crushing of boulders into smaller size stones did not amount to "manufacturing" as no new commercial commodity comes into existence. In view of law laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner was not eligible for the eligibility certificate and to get tax exemption. This stand is sought to be adopted in response to all the petitions. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Question for consideration is--whether activity of crushing of boulders into smaller sizes of stones amounts to "manufacturing" and, if not, whether the sales tax exemption already granted could be withdrawn? 6. The very same question came up for consideration in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC) : [2003] 1 SCC 70 in the context of question referred to the High Court by the Sales Tax Tribunal under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1939, i.e. (page 80 in 129 STC): Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, was the Tribunal justified in holding that crushing of boulders resulting in mental of different sizes ordinarily known as 'gitti' does not amount to manufacture? 7. 7. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that no manufacturing was involved and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the smaller sizes of stone after crushing as the said item was not distinct item. Upholding the view, the honourable Supreme Court held (page 81 in 129 STC): 5. From a perusal of the definition, extracted above, it is clear that the processes of producing, making, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting of any goods fall within the meaning of the term 'manufacture'. But it may be pointed out that every type of variation of the goods or finishing of goods would not amount to manufacture unless it results in emergence of a new commercial commodity. In the instant case, the very nature of the activity does not result in manufacture because no new commercial commodity comes into existence. 8. Since the question arising in the present case is identical, the view taken by the honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has to be treated as binding in this case. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several judgments to submit that when there is a change in user by applying a process, it can be held that "manufacturing" is involved. In Kores India Ltd., Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2005] 1 SCC 385 cutting of typewriter/telex ribbons into jumbo rolls into different sizes was held to involve "manufacturing". In Income-tax Officer, Udaipur v. Arihant Tiles and Marbles P. Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 79 (SC) : [2010] 2 SCC 699, conversion of raw marble blocks into final product of polished marble slabs was held to involve "manufacturing". In Brakes India Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1997] 10 SCC 717, application of character or use test was held to be permissible to determine whether "manufacturing" was involved. In a judgment of this court in Data Plus Info Channel v. State of Assam [2013] 58 VST 262 (Gauhati) in W.P. (C) No. 4196 of 2010 decided on September 17, 2012 cutting of paper from paper roll, etc., was held to involve "manufacturing". 10. The question whether a process amounts to "manufacturing" has been dealt with in several judgments including in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 401 (SC) : [1989] 179 ITR 317 (SC) : [1989] 3 SCC 488. 10. The question whether a process amounts to "manufacturing" has been dealt with in several judgments including in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 401 (SC) : [1989] 179 ITR 317 (SC) : [1989] 3 SCC 488. While the principle for determining whether a process amounts to "manufacturing" or not, is well known, namely, when a distinct and new article emerges as a result of the process, it can be held that manufacturing is involved. There are borderline cases where either conclusion can be reached. The honourable Supreme Court observed in the said case (pages 423 and 424 in 74 STC): 42. The prevalent and generally accepted test to ascertain that there is 'manufacture' is whether the change or the series of changes brought about by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where, commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognised as a distinct and new-article that has emerged as a result of the processes. The principles are clear. But difficulties arise in their application in individual cases. There might be borderline cases where either conclusion with equal justification may be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic distinction between 'processing' and 'manufacture', we are afraid, results in an oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present one. The correctness of the view in the Empire Industries' case [1987] 64 STC 42 (SC) : [1986] 162 ITR 846 (SC) : [1985] Supp 1 SCR 292 cannot be tested in the light of material--in the form of affidavit expressing the opinion of the persons said to be engaged in or connected with, the textile trade as to the commercial identity of the commodities before and after the processing--placed before the court in a subsequent case. These opinions are, of course, relevant and would be amongst the various factors to be taken into account in deciding the question. 11. In the present case, the question being covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court on the same item, it is not open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any "manufacturing". 12. 11. In the present case, the question being covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court on the same item, it is not open to this court to examine the matter any further and we have to hold that crushing of boulders into different sizes of stone did not involve any "manufacturing". 12. No doubt a Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. R.C. Construction [1996] 222 ITR 658 (Gau.), has held that making of chips from big boulders amount to "manufacturing", but the said judgment cannot any longer be held to be holding the field in view of direct decision of the honourable Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC) : [2003] 1 SCC 70, to the contrary. 13. Next question is whether it is open to the Department to cancel the eligibility certificate already granted even if the same was given on erroneous understanding that conversion of stones into chips amounts to "manufacturing". Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P. [2005] 142 STC 76 (SC) : [2005] 6 SCC 292 and Pondicherry State Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [2007] 10 VST 630 (SC) : [2008] 1 SCC 206 and of this court in W.P. (C) No. 1683 of 2010 (Jai Chemical Industries v. State of Assam [2013] 63 VST 202 (Gauhati)) decided on August 30, 2012 and in W.P. (C) No. 2603 of 2011 (Sunil Kumar Taparia v. State of Assam [2013] 57 VST 552 (Gauhati)) decided on August 23, 2012 it was not permissible to cancel the eligibility certificate already granted in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioners when the issue was debatable. 14. No doubt legal position put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner is unexceptional, but in the present case, it cannot be held that the issue was debatable even at the time when eligibility certificate was granted which admittedly was after the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Stores [2003] 129 STC 79 (SC) : [2003] 1 SCC 70. We, thus, are unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. We, thus, are unable to hold that proposed cancellation of eligibility certificate is based on mere change of opinion on a debatable issue. The Revenue authority in the present case is proceeding on the basis of a binding legal precedent and not merely on its own opinion. There can be estoppel against law. Even if eligibility certificate was issued, the Revenue authority can certainly act on established legal position. 15. In view of above, we are unable to interfere with the impugned action. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Department itself was under the impression that "manufacturing" activity was involved in the process and had taken a conscious decision to grant exemption on which the petitioners acted upon, we direct that benefit already extended till date will not be liable to be withdrawn. Action of respondents for future stands upheld. All the petitions will stand disposed of accordingly.