Manufactured goods and tariff classification: cleated stampings with distinct commercial identity fell under the residuary excise item.

A cleated and rivetted stack of stampings was treated as manufactured goods because it resulted from a manufacturing process and had distinct commercial identity as goods sold in the market. It was therefore excisable under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. For classification, the product was held not to fall under Item 28A because it was a new product with a different name, character and use from stampings, and not under Item 30(4) because further manufacturing was needed before it could be treated as rotors. In the absence of a specific entry, it was placed under the residuary Item 68, and the duty confirmation was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cleated and rivetted stack of stampings manufactured by the assessee amounted to goods manufactured within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and was therefore excisable; (ii) whether the goods were classifiable under Item 28A or Item 30(4) of the Central Excise Tariff, or under the residuary Item 68.

Issue (i): whether the cleated and rivetted stack of stampings manufactured by the assessee amounted to goods manufactured within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and was therefore excisable.

Analysis: The product was held to be the result of a manufacturing process. It was also noted that similar goods were available in the market for sale and purchase, indicating commercial identity as goods distinct from the raw stampings.

Conclusion: The goods were manufactured goods and were excisable.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were classifiable under Item 28A or Item 30(4) of the Central Excise Tariff, or under the residuary Item 68.

Analysis: The goods were found to be a new product with a name, character and use distinct from stampings, so they fell outside Item 28A. They were also not rotors under Item 30(4) because further manufacturing operations were required before they could be treated as rotors. In the absence of a specific tariff entry, they were held to fall under the residuary item.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Item 68.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed, the earlier appellate order was set aside, and the order confirming duty liability was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A product emerging from a manufacturing process, having a distinct commercial identity and not answering a specific tariff entry, is excisable and classifiable under the residuary item.

---