Manufacture test for worked mirrors fails where edgeworking and enamelling do not create a new commodity with distinct identity.

Processes of edgeworking, engraving, drilling and enamelling applied to customer-supplied mirrors did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act because the mirrors were already marketable articles in existence and the working did not bring into existence a new commodity with a distinct identity, character or use. The view that an unworked mirror was merely glass and became a mirror only after such processes was rejected. As no new product emerged and the identity and utility of the mirror remained intact, the duty demand could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the processes of edgeworking, engraving, drilling and enamelling carried out on customer-supplied mirrors amounted to manufacture under Section 2F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The processes were applied to mirrors already in existence and commonly bought and sold in the market. Such working did not bring into existence a new product, nor did it destroy the identity or utility of the mirror. The view that an unworked mirror was merely glass and only became a mirror after the processes was found to be incorrect. Although different kinds of working on mirrors may, in some situations, alter their use, that question was not the basis of the impugned order and was not examined.

Conclusion: The processes did not amount to manufacture and the duty demand could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Processes applied to an existing marketable article do not constitute manufacture unless they result in the emergence of a new commodity with a distinct identity, character or use.

---