M.S. wire drawing is not manufacture where no new commodity with distinct identity and use emerges.

Drawing M.S. wires from M.S. wire rods was considered a process of working the material rather than bringing into existence a new excisable commodity. The governing test applied was whether the process produced an article with a new name, identity and use; on that principle, wire drawing from rods did not create a commercially distinct product for central excise purposes. The settled position noted in the text is that the technology employed is not decisive unless the end product acquires a separate market identity. As a result, such drawing activity was treated as outside manufacture and central excise duty was not attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether drawing M.S. wires from M.S. wire rods amounts to manufacture and attracts central excise duty.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the process of drawing wire rods into wires brings into existence a new excisable commodity. The decision ultimately followed the settled principle that manufacture depends on whether the process results in a product with a new name, identity and use, and not on the nature of the technology employed. The relevant earlier decisions were treated as establishing that drawing wires from rods does not, by itself, create a commercially distinct article for excise purposes.

Conclusion: Drawing M.S. wires from M.S. wire rods does not amount to manufacture, and the demand of central excise duty was unsustainable.

---