Re-glasslining old vessels not manufacturing under Central Excise Rules

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that re-glasslining old vessels does not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal determined that activities like re-glasslining, repairing, and re-conditioning of old goods do not constitute manufacturing. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing glasslined vessels and re-glasslining old equipment, successfully challenged the authorities' contention that duty should be paid on the entire value of re-glasslined vessels. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant and granting consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether re-glasslining of old and used vessels received from customers amounts to manufacture for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The activity was undertaken in relation to old glasslined equipment received from customers, and the dispute turned on whether the process brought about a new and distinct product so as to attract the definition of manufacture. The Court relied on prior decisions holding that rubber lining, repairing, re-making, re-conditioning, rubberizing, re-rubberizing, and re-engraving of old or damaged goods do not amount to manufacture where the work is essentially restorative and does not result in a commercially new article. Applying the same principle, the process of re-lining old and used vessels was treated as falling outside manufacture.

Conclusion: Re-glasslining of old and used vessels does not amount to manufacture and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The demand based on treating the re-glasslining activity as manufacture could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A restorative process applied to old or used goods, which does not bring into existence a new and distinct article, does not constitute manufacture for central excise purposes.

---