Mere repacking of detergent into retail packs is not manufacture absent a new commercially distinct product.

Mere repacking of bulk detergent powder into retail packs for export did not amount to manufacture because no new commercially distinct product emerged; the goods retained the same nomenclature and use, so Section 2(f) was not satisfied for the relevant period. A later deeming provision introduced in 1997 could not apply retrospectively to the period in dispute. The challenge based on denial of hearing also failed, as the record showed opportunities had been given and no affidavit supported non-receipt of notice. The refund claim under Rule 57F(3) was therefore rejected and the denial of refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether repacking bulk detergent powder into retail packs for export amounted to manufacture, and whether the claim for refund under Rule 57F(3) could be sustained.

Analysis: Mere repacking of detergent powder did not bring into existence any new excisable product. The bulk and repacked goods remained commercially the same detergent, with the same nomenclature and use, and therefore did not satisfy the definition of manufacture under Section 2(f). The later deeming provision introduced in 1997 could not govern the earlier period in dispute. The claim of denial of hearing was also not accepted, as the record showed opportunities had been given and no supporting affidavit was filed to substantiate non-receipt of notice.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture for the relevant period, and the rejection of the refund claim was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the denial of refund was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere repacking of a goods into smaller packs, without emergence of a new commercially distinct product, does not constitute manufacture unless a deeming provision applicable to the relevant period so provides.

---