Manufacture and excisability require proof of commercial distinctness; mere dipping of insulation board was insufficient.

Dipping plain insulation board in bituminous solution was treated as not amounting to manufacture because the Department did not prove that the dipped board was commercially different from the plain board or that its nature or use had materially changed. The text emphasises that a party asserting classification under a tariff entry must establish that claim with sufficient evidence. In the absence of adequate proof, the claimed excisability under the asserted tariff heading could not be sustained, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether dipping plain insulation board in bituminous solution amounted to manufacture and justified the Department's claim of excisability/classification under the asserted tariff heading.

Analysis: A party asserting that a product falls under a particular tariff entry must establish that claim with sufficient evidence. On the record, the Department did not satisfactorily show how the plain board and the dipped board were commercially different, nor did it adduce adequate evidence to prove the alleged change in the nature or use of the product. In the absence of such proof, the claim of manufacture could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---