JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following questions of law:- “i) Whether the goods declared for export under EPCG Scheme as marble Block, which were subsequently found as “Silicified Limestone” on the basis of GSI test report are to be treated as “Marble Block. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the test report of Mines and Geology Department of Rajasthan Udaipur opine that the goods in question were actually marble ignoring its laboratory report which states that the goods were neither sandstone nor marble but altered ultra-basic rock? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs 1990(47) ELT 161 (SC) laying down the law in subject matter. 3. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jain contended that the respondent has taken benefit under EPCG Scheme for marble but export is of not marble block but lime stone. 4. He contended that observations which are made by the Tribunal are contrary to record inasmuch as the certificate which has been issued clearly reads as under:- “Comment with regard to Test Query: “In view of the physical appearance, Colour, earthy nature combined with mineralogical assemblage patrologically speaking the rock in question is neither sandstone nor marble but it is an altered ultra-basic rock.” 5. He further contended that the observations which are made by the Commissioner (Appeals) while coming to the finding requires to be accepted and appeal is liable to be allowed and the obligations for export under EPCG Scheme is required to be fulfilled. 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant. 7. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The observations made by the Tribunal in para 7, 8, 9 & 10 reads as under:- “7. As per Wikipedia, Marble is a non-foliated metamorphic rock composed of recrystallized carbonate minerals, most commonly calcite or dolomite. Geologists use the term marble to refer to metamorphosed limestone; however, stonemasons use the term more broadly to encompass un-metamorphosed limestone. Marble is commonly used for sculpture and as a building material. As per Wikipedia, Marble is a non-foliated metamorphic rock composed of recrystallized carbonate minerals, most commonly calcite or dolomite. Geologists use the term marble to refer to metamorphosed limestone; however, stonemasons use the term more broadly to encompass un-metamorphosed limestone. Marble is commonly used for sculpture and as a building material. It further says that Marble is a rock resulting from metamorphism of sedimentary carbonate rocks, most commonly limestone or dolomite rock. Metamorphism causes variable re-crystallization of the original carbonate mineral gains. The resulting marble rock is typically composed of an interlocking mosaic of carbonate crystals. Primary sedimentary textures and structures of the original carbonate rock (protolith) have typically been modified or destroyed. As is seen the marble is nothing but a stone which emerges by the metamorphosis of limestone. There is no definition of Marble appearing in the Customs Act and as such we have to resort to the other attending circumstances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs referred (supra) has referred to the Indian Bureau of Mines letter dated 03/3/1982 wherein it has been mentioned as under:- Technical Definition: Geologically (petrologically) marble is recrystallised (metamorphosed) limestone. Ordinary limestone is a sedimentary rock but once it is metamorphosed i.e. once it has undergone re-crystallization, it is turned to marble. So marble is metamorphosed limestone which consist essentially the minerals calcite, dolomite or a combination of the two. As such, it becomes clear that it is the metamorphosed limestone which turns into marble. As such, the report of the Geological Survey of India, Jaipur laying down that the goods, in question, were Silicified Limestone, actually does not go strictly against the appellant. 8. Apart from that we also note that there is another report of the Additional Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur, which had opined the goods, in question, were actually marble. The lower Authorities have not given any weightage to the said report on the ground that the same is not based upon the chemical analysis. As already observed even chemical analysis of the other report only leads us to believe that the goods were nothing but metamorphosed limestone. 9. Apart from above, we find that the goods, in question, were being excavated by them under a licence mining lease executed by them with the State of Rajasthan through Mining Engineer, Mining and Geological Department, Bikaner. As already observed even chemical analysis of the other report only leads us to believe that the goods were nothing but metamorphosed limestone. 9. Apart from above, we find that the goods, in question, were being excavated by them under a licence mining lease executed by them with the State of Rajasthan through Mining Engineer, Mining and Geological Department, Bikaner. The dead rent paid by the appellant was at the rate applicable to mines of marble, as against the rate applicable in respect of mines of limestone. The appellants have also realized the entire export value by treating the goods as marbles by their customers. The appellants have also placed on record the assessment order of Government of Rajasthan relating to the pertaining period showing that excavated material was nothing but marble. They have also drawn our attention to the Pollution Control consent given by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur, a statutory body, for mining of marble in respect of leases. All the attending circumstances lead us to believe that the goods, in question, were marble and not limestone. 10. We also note that the appellant’s reliance on the Tribunal decision in the case of Ramdhan Mohan Lal v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 677 (Tri. Del.) is appropriate. While taking note of two divergent reports of CRCL and Director, Geological Survey of India, Jaipur, the Tribunal observed that the chemical composition of limestone and marble are same and are not different. The marble is formed by the process of metamorphism of limestone. In as much as CRCL report satisfied the physical characteristics of marble, the Tribunal observed that Geological Survey of India report would not be applicable. In the present case, we note that the Geological Survey of India report reflects upon the goods to be limestone, which is nothing but marble. The said report is not available on record in as much as the same was not handed over to the assessee. We are not aware as to what were the questions put to Geological Survey of India at the time of sending all the samples. There being admittedly another report on record holding the goods to be marble and GSI’s report not clearly saying that the goods were not marble, we are of the view that the goods have to be held as marble.” 8. There being admittedly another report on record holding the goods to be marble and GSI’s report not clearly saying that the goods were not marble, we are of the view that the goods have to be held as marble.” 8. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The man has taken license or mining lease from State of Rajasthan as a marble exporter but merely chemical test has given it limestone as discussed by the Tribunal by referring to meaning of Wikepedia wherein in para 7 as reproduced herein above, the marble is also one kind of limestone. 9. Taking into consideration, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. No substantial question of law arises. 10. The appeal stands dismissed.