Slitting and re-rolling duty-paid paper is not manufacture and does not attract excise duty or licensing requirements.

Mere slitting and re-rolling of duty-paid paper rolls, without changing their identity or creating a new marketable commodity, does not amount to manufacture. As no new product such as converted paper emerges, the process is not chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 17(2). On the same reasoning, a Central Excise licence under Item 17 is not required, because the activity falls outside the scope of manufacture attracting duty. The stated principle is that manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct commercial article; where the original paper retains its identity, no excise liability or licensing obligation arises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether slitting and re-rolling of duty-paid paper rolls constitutes manufacture of paper; (ii) whether the process results in converted paper chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 17(2); and (iii) whether a Central Excise licence under Item 17 is required for such process.

Issue (i): Whether slitting and re-rolling of duty-paid paper rolls constitutes manufacture of paper.

Analysis: The operation merely cut duty-paid paper rolls into suitable sizes and re-rolled them. The original characteristics and identity of the paper remained unchanged, and no new product known to the market came into existence. A process amounts to manufacture only when it brings about a new and distinct commodity.

Conclusion: Slitting and re-rolling of the duty-paid paper rolls did not constitute manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether the process results in converted paper chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 17(2).

Analysis: The paper did not lose its identity and was not transformed into a different commercial article comparable to converted papers such as bituminised or plasticised paper. In the absence of a manufacturing process that creates a new product, the goods could not be treated as converted paper under Tariff Item 17(2).

Conclusion: The paper cut and re-rolled by the appellants was not chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 17(2).

Issue (iii): Whether a Central Excise licence under Item 17 is required for such process.

Analysis: A licence requirement would arise only if the activity fell within the scope of manufacture attracting duty under the relevant tariff entry. Since no manufacture was involved and no excisable converted paper emerged, the licensing obligation did not arise.

Conclusion: No Central Excise licence under Item 17 was required.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the assessment order was set aside, and consequential relief followed because the process did not amount to manufacture or give rise to duty liability under the tariff entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere slitting and re-rolling of duty-paid paper, which does not change the paper's identity or create a new commercial product, is not manufacture and does not attract excise duty under the relevant tariff entry.

---