ITA No. 13 of 2010 & ITA No.14 of 2010. 1.7.2010 Present: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala counsel for the appellant. The following questions of law have been raised by the appellant in these two appeals:- a) Whether the judgement passed by this Hon’ble Court in ITA Nos. 6 and 7 of 2007 in the matter of M/s D.J.Stone Crusher Vs. CIT is good law in view of the law already laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CST vs. Lal Kunwa Crusher (AIR 2000 (SC) 1161), and Divisional Deputy CST vs. Bherhaghat Mineral Industries (246 ITR 230)? b) Whether the conversion of stone boulders into smaller stone pieces known as gitti by a process of stone crushing amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 80 IB (4) of the Income-tax Act? As far as the question No. (b) is concerned the same is covered by a judgement of this Court delivered in M/s D.J.Stone Crusher vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No. 6 & 7 of 2007 dated 16.12.2009, to which one of us Deepak Gupta, Judge, was a member. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the judgement delivered by this Court is not good law in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in CST vs. Lal Kunwa Crusher (AIR 2000 (SC) 1161). As far as Lal Kunwa Crusher’s case is concerned the same is a prior judgement of the Apex Court which was not cited before us when we delivered the judgement in M/s D.J.Stone Crusher’s case. Furthermore, we have relied upon a latter judgement of the Apex Court in Lucky Minmat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income tax, 2000 (245) ITR 830 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “The conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers could legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of limestone and marble and cutting the same before it was sold in the market could not be so considered.” Our judgement in D.J.Stone Crusher’s case is totally based on the latter judgement of the Apex Court. As far as the other judgement relied upon by the appellant is concerned the same does not lay down any preposition of law and only the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue was dismissed without deciding any question. We, therefore, find that the questions of law raised are not substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 260 of the Income-tax Act and therefore the appeals are dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 1st July, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.