Reconditioning of old shock absorbers did not create new manufactured goods liable to excise; repaired goods remained repaired articles.

Reconditioning of old shock absorbers did not, on the facts stated, amount to manufacture of new excisable goods merely because the repaired articles were resalable and sold under a trade mark or label. The text notes that the goods remained repaired shock absorbers, and the view that reconditioning by itself created a distinct new product was rejected as unsustainable. The reconditioned shock absorbers were therefore not treated as newly manufactured goods liable to excise, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reconditioned old shock absorbers, sold under a trade mark after repair and reconditioning, amounted to newly manufactured goods liable to excise.

Analysis: The appellants' case was that they only purchased old shock absorbers, repaired and reconditioned them, and sold them after affixing a label to distinguish their product. The reasoning accepted that the Assistant Collector had not disputed that the goods were repaired shock absorbers. The view that reconditioning gave them a distinct form and made them fully manufactured new goods was rejected as unsustainable on the facts. Reconditioning alone was held not to convert such articles into new manufactured goods merely because they were resalable in the market.

Conclusion: The reconditioned shock absorbers were not treated as newly manufactured goods, and the appeal was allowed.

---