Reconditioning old telephone equipment did not amount to manufacture, and the goods were not assessable under Tariff Item 33D.

Reconditioning purchased old telephone instruments was examined to determine whether the activity amounted to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whether the goods fell under Tariff Item 33D. The text states that the activity was limited to reconditioning existing equipment, and that similar standard goods manufactured by I.T.I., Bangalore were not being charged to duty under Tariff Item 33D. On those facts, the reconditioned goods were held not liable to excise duty under that item, with the result going in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reconditioning of purchased old telephone equipment amounted to manufacture attracting duty, and whether the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item 33D.

Analysis: The petitioner's activity consisted only of reconditioning purchased old telephone instruments. The question of levy turned on whether such activity fell within the meaning of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The record also showed that similar standard goods manufactured by I.T.I., Bangalore were not being charged to duty under Tariff Item 33D, supporting the plea that the reconditioned goods should not be subjected to duty under the same item.

Conclusion: Reconditioning did not warrant duty in the facts of the case, and the impugned goods were not liable to be charged under Tariff Item 33D. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

---