Re-rubberising worn rollers is not manufacture when the process leaves identity, character and use unchanged

Re-rubberising worn-out rollers by removing the old rubber and applying a fresh layer does not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes where the process does not create a new and distinct article. The rollers retain the same essential identity, name, character and use before and after the process, so Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted. The departmental circular relied on also supported this view and was treated as binding on the Department. On that basis, the duty demand and consequential penalties could not survive, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether re-rubberising of old and used rollers amounts to manufacture for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The activity involved removal of worn-out rubber and application of a fresh layer on used rollers. The process did not bring into existence a new and distinct article. The rollers remained rollers before and after the process, and their essential identity, name, character, and use continued unchanged. The departmental circular relied upon by the assessee also supported the view that re-rubberising of rollers does not amount to manufacture, and such circulars are binding on the Department.

Conclusion: Re-rubberising of used rollers was not manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty and consequential penalties could not survive, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A process of repair or re-rubberising does not constitute manufacture unless it results in a new and distinct commodity with a different name, character, and use.

---