Manufacture under excise law requires a new and distinct commodity; branding and packing alone do not create liability.

Excise duty applies only where a process results in manufacture, meaning the emergence of a new and distinct commercial commodity with a separate identity, character or use. Branding, polishing, affixing MRP and packing of locks received in assembled form did not change their essential identity, so marketability alone could not establish manufacture. On that basis, the demand, penalties and confiscation against the manufacturer were set aside, along with connected penalties. The disputes relating to shortages, raw material and alleged job-work removals were not finally determined on the existing record and required fresh examination, including valuation and factual verification, with remand for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether R.P. Locks were the manufacturers of the locks and liable to duty, penalty and confiscation on the footing that branding, polishing, affixing MRP and packing made the goods marketable; (ii) whether the demands and related issues against Key Locks (India) required remand for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether R.P. Locks were the manufacturers of the locks and liable to duty, penalty and confiscation on the footing that branding, polishing, affixing MRP and packing made the goods marketable.

Analysis: Under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, excise duty attaches only to goods produced or manufactured in India. Manufacture requires emergence of a new and different commercial commodity with a distinctive name, character or use. The processes undertaken by R.P. Locks on locks received in assembled form did not create a new product; the locks remained locks even after branding, polishing and packing. Marketability alone was insufficient in the absence of manufacture. The conclusion that R.P. Locks were the manufacturers could therefore not be sustained, and the question whether power was used at the intermediate stage did not alter the result.

Conclusion: R.P. Locks were held not to be manufacturers of the locks, and the duty demand, penalties and confiscation against them were set aside; the penalties on the connected persons and Remy Industries were also set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands and related issues against Key Locks (India) required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The demand based on shortage of locks, shortage of raw material and alleged job-work removals required re-examination on the appellants' specific submissions, including valuation and factual aspects. The demand in respect of locks found short was not fully established on the existing material, but assessable value required redetermination. The other duty components also needed fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority in accordance with natural justice.

Conclusion: The matters relating to Key Locks (India) and Ravi Jain were remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication and recomputation where necessary.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part: the finding of manufacture against R.P. Locks was overturned with consequential relief, while the disputes concerning Key Locks (India) were sent back for reconsideration and fresh orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be imposed unless the process results in manufacture, meaning the emergence of a new and distinct commodity; mere finishing operations such as branding, polishing, packing or affixing MRP do not amount to manufacture if the article retains its identity.

---