Waste by-product exemption and mere dilution not manufacture: assessee's relief sustained on both excise issues.

Spent sulphuric acid arising incidentally as a by-product in the manufacture of detergent cake and detergent powder was treated as waste and fell within the exemption notification; the assessee's exemption was therefore sustained. Dilution of fabric brightener from a higher to a lower concentration was held to be mere processing without emergence of a new product, so it did not amount to manufacture and no duty liability arose. The Tribunal relied on prior authority on spent sulphuric acid and accepted the appellate finding that dilution alone was insufficient to attract excise duty. The revenue challenge failed on both issues and the relief granted to the assessee was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether spent sulphuric acid arising as a by-product in the manufacture of detergent cake/detergent powder was a waste product eligible for exemption under the relevant notification; (ii) whether dilution of fabric brightener amounted to manufacture giving rise to duty liability.

Issue (i): Whether spent sulphuric acid arising as a by-product in the manufacture of detergent cake/detergent powder was a waste product eligible for exemption under the relevant notification.

Analysis: The product was found to emerge incidentally during manufacture and to answer the description of waste. The exemption had already been allowed by the appellate authority, and the Tribunal found no sustainable ground to disturb that finding. Reliance was placed on prior Tribunal authority treating spent sulphuric acid as waste in a similar context.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly available and the finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether dilution of fabric brightener amounted to manufacture giving rise to duty liability.

Analysis: The process recorded was only dilution of the raw material from a higher to a lower concentration. On that factual basis, the appellate authority held that the activity did not amount to manufacture, and the Tribunal agreed with that conclusion.

Conclusion: No manufacture took place, so no duty liability arose on fabric brightener.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal failed on both issues, and the assessee's relief as granted in the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A by-product treated as waste and covered by the exemption notification remains exempt, and mere dilution without emergence of a new product does not constitute manufacture.

---