Manufacture under central excise excludes mere barytes powdering where no new commercially distinct product emerges.

Mere conversion of barytes lumps into powder, even with sieving in some cases, did not amount to manufacture because it produced no new and distinct commercial article with a different name, character or use; duty under Item 68 was therefore not leviable. The exemption in Notification No. 114/73 also did not apply because the product was not shown to be a mixture of the nature of pigments or dry colours in which barytes formed one ingredient. The stated ratio is that reducing a mineral from lumps to powder, without transformation into a commercially distinct product, is not manufacture for central excise purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether conversion of barytes lumps into powder constituted manufacture so as to attract duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff; (ii) whether the assessee could claim exemption on the basis of Notification No. 114/73.

Issue (i): Whether conversion of barytes lumps into powder constituted manufacture so as to attract duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: Manufacture requires transformation resulting in a new and different article having a distinctive name, character or use. Mere reduction of lumps into powder, without evidence of processing into distinct graded varieties for specific industrial uses, does not satisfy that test. On the facts, the activity was only powdering of barytes, with sieving in some cases, and there was no conscious attempt to produce different grades amounting to a new commercial product.

Conclusion: Mere conversion of barytes lumps into powder did not constitute manufacture, and duty under Item 68 was not leviable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could claim exemption on the basis of Notification No. 114/73.

Analysis: The notification related to mixtures of the nature of pigments or dry colours in which barytes formed one ingredient. The assessee's product was not shown to be such a mixture or dry colour, so the notification did not govern the case.

Conclusion: The exemption notification was inapplicable to the assessee's product.

Final Conclusion: The levy of duty failed because the process did not amount to manufacture, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reduction of a mineral from lumps to powder, without transformation into a new commercially distinct article, is not manufacture for central excise purposes.

---