Manufacture under central excise law requires a new commercially distinct product; mere fabrication of iron and steel items is not enough.

Fabrication of duty-paid iron and steel items by cutting, drilling, punching, bending, welding and riveting was held not to amount to manufacture under central excise law because the process only altered the materials into different shapes and sizes for identification purposes. No new commodity with a distinct commercial identity emerged in the market, and the original character of the materials remained unchanged. The mere use of different names by the assessee did not create commercially separate products. The assessee therefore succeeded on the excise classification issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether fabrication of iron and steel items by cutting to size, drilling, punching, bending, welding and riveting amounted to manufacture under central excise law.

Analysis: The process undertaken resulted only in fabrication of duty-paid iron and steel materials into different shapes and sizes for identification purposes. No evidence showed emergence of a new commodity known to the market with a distinct commercial identity. The items retained the character of the original materials, and the mere assignment of different names by the appellant did not make them commercially separate products.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive excise issue.

---