Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 468 of 1988. From the Order dated 7.7.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal	 New Delhi in Appeal No. 383/83 D. G. Ramaswami	 Additional Solicitor General	 Ms. Indu Malhotra and Mrs. Sushma Suri	 for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI	 J. This is an appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act	 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act '). The appeal is directed against the Order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the CEGAT '). The respondent herein filed a classification list on 16th March	 1982 seeking approval of Sawn timber and dried timber as non excisable. The submission of the respondent was that timber logs were only sawn into sizes and these did not tantamount to any manufacture. However	 the Assistant Collector	 Madras	 held that the conversion of timber logs into sawn timber satisfied the conditions of manufacture insofar as the conversion of timber logs into sawn timber involves transformation whereby a new and different article with the distinct name	 character or use emerges which is different from timber logs. It was held accordingly that excise duty @ 8% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff was leviable. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Appeals who concurred with the Assistant Collector upholding the duty. Aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the CEGAT. 365 The Tribunal in the Judgment under appeal	 relied on its decision in the case of Sanghvi Enterprises	 Jammu	 Tawi vs Collector of Central Excise	 Chandigarh	 [1984] Vol. and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Y. Moideen Kunhi & Ors. vs Collector of Central Excise	 Bangalore & Ors.	 [1986] Vol. and came to the conclusion that no new product emerges by sawing of timber into several sizes. In the premises the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent. Hence	 this appeal. It is well settled that excise duty becomes chargeable only when a new and different article emerges having a distinct name	 character and use. See in this connection the observations of this Court in Union of India vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills	 ; and South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. etc. vs Union of India Ors. [1968] 3 SCR 21. This principle is well settled. This is a question of fact depending upon the relevant material whether as a result of activity	 a new and different article emerges having a distinct name	 character and use. The use of expression 'manufacture ' was explained in the case of Allenburry Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramakrishna Dalmia & Ors.	 ; In State of Orissa & Ors. vs The Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr.	 ; which was a decision on the Orissa Sales Tax Act	 this question was considered in the background of the fact whether planks	 cut into sizes	 etc.	 sawed out of logs	 are different from logs in its nascent state. It may be worthwhile to note that 'manufacture ' implies a change	 but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment	 labour and manipulation. But something more was necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name	 character or use. See Union of India vs Delhi Cloth Mills (supra) at page 596 of the report. Having regard to the facts found in this case by the Tribunal	 which ultimately is the final fact finding authority	 we are of the opinion that regard being had to the principles for determining the questions which were correctly applied in the decision of the Tribunal	 in the facts of this case	 the conclusion of the Tribunal is unassailable. In the premises there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. N.P.V. Appeal dismissed.

% The respondent firm filed a classification list before the Assistant Collector	 Excise	 and sought approval for treating sawn timber and dried timber as non excisable on the ground that sawing of timber logs into sizes did not amount to manufacture. The Assistant Collector held that conversion of the timber logs into sawn timber satisfied the conditions of manufacture since it involved transformation	 whereby a new and different article with the distinct name	 character or use	 which was different from the timber logs	 emerged	 and	 therefore	 excise duty was leviable under Tariff Item 68. On appeal	 the Collector concurred with the Assistant Collector. Allowing the appeal of the respondent	 the Customs	 Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that no new product emerged by sawing of timber into several sizes. Hence the appeal by the Revenue under Section 35(L) of the . Dismissing the appeal by the State	 ^ HELD: 1.1 Excise duty becomes chargeable only when a new and different article emerges having a distinct name	 character and use. This is a question of fact depending upon the relevant material whether	 as a result of activity	 a new and different article emerges having a distinct name	 character and use. [365B D] 1.2 'Manufacture ' implies a change	 but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment	 labour and manipulation. But something more was necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinct name	 character or use. [365E F] 364 Having regard to the facts of the case	 as found by the Tribunal which was the final fact finding authority and regard being had to the principles for determining the questions which were correctly applied by the Tribunal	 the conclusion of the Tribunal that no new product emerged by sawing of timber into several sizes is unassailable. [365F G] Union of India vs Delhi Cloth General Mills	 ; ; Allenburry Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramakrishna Dalmia & Ors.	 ; and State of Orissa & Ors. vs The Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr.	 ; 	 referred to.