JUDGMENT 1. - All these appeals, as they involve similar substantial question of law, are being decided by this common order. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Benches at Jodhpur whereby the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal decided the appeals of the respective parties, by holding cutting and polishing of marble blocks exported by the assessees had led to high value addition and thereby the assessees were eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act during the relevant assessment years. 3. While admitting present appeals of the Revenue, a co-ordinate Division Bench of this court framed the following substantial question of law under section 260A of the Act : "Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing to allow deduction under section 80HHC on export of marble blocks which were not polished as required, vide item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule and ignoring the fact that there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks as required in Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994 ?" 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue, Mr. K. K. Bissa, submitted that the marble blocks, which were exported by the assessees, were not "polished" as required by the Twelfth Schedule and there was no value addition in terms of cost of exported blocks. He further submitted that the assessees are not entitled to deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for assessee-respondents submitted that the exported marble blocks were cut and polished and were eligible for deductions permissible under section 80HHC of the Act. 6. In support of their claim, the assessees had submitted office copies of invoices/vouchers/certificates for showing that cutting and polishing of the marble blocks had been done. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. God Granites (1999) 240 ITR 343 (Karn) , which was affirmed by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. God Granites (2003) 262 ITR 567 (SC). 7. Learned counsel further relied upon the decision of the hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. God Granites (1999) 240 ITR 343 (Karn) , which was affirmed by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CIT v. God Granites (2003) 262 ITR 567 (SC). 7. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant-Revenue had not challenged the findings of facts arrived at by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and that findings of facts are binding on this court. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) and contended that the assessee-respondents are entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act regarding the export of marble blocks. 8. We have heard learned counsel at length, perused the impugned orders and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. 9. The relevant provisions of the statute, which are necessary for adjudication of the present dispute may be referred to at this stage. Section 80HHC of the Act reads : "(1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India is engaged in business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with the subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise : Provided . . . (b) this section does not apply to the following goods or merchandise, namely:- (i) mineral oil, and (ii) minerals and ores (other than processed minerals and ores specified in the Twelfth Schedule)." 10. Item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule relating to minerals and rocks reads : "(x) Cut and polished minerals and rocks including cut and polished granite. . . (b) this section does not apply to the following goods or merchandise, namely:- (i) mineral oil, and (ii) minerals and ores (other than processed minerals and ores specified in the Twelfth Schedule)." 10. Item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule relating to minerals and rocks reads : "(x) Cut and polished minerals and rocks including cut and polished granite. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Schedule, 'processed', in relation to any mineral or ore, means- (a) dressing through mechanical means to obtain concentrate after removal of gangue and unwanted deleterious substances or through other means without altering the mineralogical identify; (b) pulverisation, calcination or micronisation; (c) agglomeration from fines; (d) cutting and, polishing; (e) washing and levigation; (f) benefication by mechanical crushing and screening through dry process; (g) sizing by crushing, screening, washing and classification through wet process; (h) other upgrading techniques such as removal of impurities, through chemical treatment, refining by gravity separation, bleaching, floatation or filtration." 11. Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994, reads as under (see (1995) 211 ITR (St.) 25 ) : "Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994 Sub : Benefit of section 80HHC for export of processed minerals-Clarification regarding export of cut and polished dimensional blocks, granite or other rocks. Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act allows a deduction from the gross total income of the entire profits derived from export of goods other than minerals. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 extended the benefit to export of processed minerals and ores mentioned in the Twelfth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. Item (x) of the Schedule mentions 'cut and polished minerals and rocks including cut and polished granite'. 2. Some organisations and individual taxpayers have raised doubts whether the deduction under section 80HHC is available in respect of export of granite or other rocks that are cut and exported as raw blocks after being washed and cleaned. 3. The entry in the Twelfth Schedule is very clear and unambiguous and uses the term 'cut and polished'. Therefore, for availing of the benefit under section 80HHC, it is necessary that the rock is not only cut into blocks but also polished before it is exported. This is in line with Government's policy to encourage export of polished granite and other rocks where value addition before export is high and to dis courage export of raw blocks where value addition is low." 12. This is in line with Government's policy to encourage export of polished granite and other rocks where value addition before export is high and to dis courage export of raw blocks where value addition is low." 12. In the present case, it is to be seen whether the conditions included in the Twelfth Schedule, reiterated in Circular No. 693, being "cutting and polishing" have been fulfilled. 13. The case of the Revenue is that the assessees have exported marble blocks after cutting but without polishing and the assessees have not supported the contention of polishing as per the books of account. In the case of CIT v. God Granites (supra) words 'cutting and polishing' have been interpreted and it was observed by the hon'ble Karnataka High Court as under (page 351 of 240 ITR) : "Under the Twelfth Schedule what is required is that only cut and polished minerals including granites should be exported for entitlement to deduction under section 80HHC. In the explanation to the Twelfth Schedule 'processed' has been defined to mean in relation to any mineral or ore mentioned in items (a) to (h). The Act does not prescribe the degree or extent of cutting and polishing to be applied to granite ores or boulders. Any process applied to the rough mineral, which adds value to the marketable commodity would create an eligibility for deduction. When rough granites are cut into dimensional blocks of uniform colour and size and also certain amount of dressing and polishing which would remove various natural flaws such as colour variations, etc. would certainly amount to processing of the granite and adds value to its marketability. The Act does not specifically say that the minerals and granites should be given the final cut and be finally polished before they are exported. If such a view is taken the purpose of allowing the benefit to cut and polished minerals including granite blocks towards deduction under section 80HHC. would get frustrated. It is ultimate users of the granite who would determine the shape, size and thickness of the granite blocks to be used by them and hence it is required that the final cutting of the granite blocks would have to be taken at their end. The same consideration would apply to the final polishing. The extent of final polishing required to granite blocks would depend on their actual use." 14. The same consideration would apply to the final polishing. The extent of final polishing required to granite blocks would depend on their actual use." 14. In the present case, the assessing authority has disallowed the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act by observing that the bills raised by the assessees used the term "dressed marble blocks" and in reality, the blocks were neither cut in uniform dimensional size nor polished. The ultimate cutting and polishing is to be done by the end user, so there is no logic behind the marble blocks cut and polished before export. Thus, a finding was given that the export of the marble blocks by the assessee is not eligible for the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act and the claim of the assessees under section 80HHC of the Act was disallowed. 15. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessees by observing that as the marble is a mineral, cut and polished marble blocks shall be covered by entry (x) in the Twelfth Schedule, the assessees have filed copies of invoices, certificates, etc., in support of polishing and value addition and, hence, deleted the disallowance/addition made by the assessing authority on this point. 16. The Revenue thereafter took the matter further before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal but the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on those grounds and averments and on the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the claim of the assessee-respondents for allowing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 17. Thus, the two appellate authorities below have concurrently held in favour of the assessee-respondents that there was no breach of any of the conditions of section 80HHC of the Act for grant of the said benefit to the assessees. The fact remains that the assessees exported marble blocks, which were cut and polished and thus, satisfied the requisite conditions for grant of the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act during the relevant years. 18. In the backdrop of these findings of facts it is clear that the marble blocks come under the purview of item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule and the assessees had produced vouchers, invoices, certificates for cutting and polishing of the exported marble blocks having fulfilled the conditions included in the Twelfth Schedule along with Circular No. 693. 18. In the backdrop of these findings of facts it is clear that the marble blocks come under the purview of item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule and the assessees had produced vouchers, invoices, certificates for cutting and polishing of the exported marble blocks having fulfilled the conditions included in the Twelfth Schedule along with Circular No. 693. Under the Twelfth Schedule, what is required is that only cut and marble blocks should be exported for entitlement to deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 19. The Act does not prescribe the degree or extent of "cutting and polishing" to be applied to the marble blocks. Any process applied to the rough mineral, which adds the value to marketable commodity would create an eligibility for the benefit of deduction. When rough marble is cut into dimensional blocks of uniform colour and size and also certain amount of dressing and polishing, which would remove various natural flaws such as colour variations, etc., it would certainly amount to "processing" of the marble and adds the value to its marketability. The Act does not specifically mentioned that the marble should be given final cut and final polish before being exported. If such a view is taken, the purpose of allowing the benefit to "cut and polished mineral rocks" towards deduction under section 80HHC. of the Act would get frustrated. 20. From the facts of these cases, it is also clear that after undergoing the process of cutting and polishing, export of marble blocks fetched profit at higher rate, which is clearly high value addition and, hence, the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act during the relevant assessment years claimed by the assessees cannot be denied in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. God Granites (1999) 240 ITR 343 (Karn) , which has also been affirmed by the hon'ble apex court in CIT v. God Granites (2003) 262 ITR 567 (SC). 21. Learned counsel for the assessee-respondents also submitted that the High Court cannot go into questions of facts of the case and the appellant Revenue has not taken the contention that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts was perverse. 21. Learned counsel for the assessee-respondents also submitted that the High Court cannot go into questions of facts of the case and the appellant Revenue has not taken the contention that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts was perverse. In support of their contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC) , in which it was held as follows (headnote) : "Reversing the decision of the High Court, that the final fact finding authority was the Appellate Tribunal and its decision on the facts could be gone into by the High Court only if a question had been referred on whether the finding of the Tribunal was perverse, in the sense that it was such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In the absence of such a question the High Court had to accept the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and then proceed to decide the question of law referred. . . . The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction only if a question has been referred to it whether the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on the facts was perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could have taken such a view." 22. In the present case, the finding of the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is in favour of assessee-respondents and it has been categorically held that the assessee-respondents are eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act for export of marble blocks, which were cut and polished. This findings are, indisputably, binding on, this court in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (SC). The appellant-Revenue has also not controverted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts are not correct or are perverse. Therefore, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal need not be gone into by us. 23. The appellant-Revenue has also not controverted that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on facts are not correct or are perverse. Therefore, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal need not be gone into by us. 23. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act regarding the export of cut and polished marble blocks during the relevant years by the assessee-respondents. The appeals of the Revenue, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and the substantial question of law framed above is accordingly answered in favour of assessee respondents and against the appellant-Revenue. 24. It is also pertinent to note that since Circular No. 693, dated November 17, 1994, has already been referred to and discussed along with the substantial question of law framed in these appeals, for the second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 regarding the legal effect of Circular No. 693, it is also held that the said circular does not adversely affect the claims of the assessee-respondents and the assessees are entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Thus, the second substantial question of law framed in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 is accordingly answer in favour of the assessee-respondent and against appellant-Revenue. 25. In view of the above, these appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 26. Registry is directed to place on record a copy of this order in each connected file. *******