Manufacture and tariff classification of tamarind paste turn on whether processing creates a commercially distinct product.

Converting raw tamarind into paste or concentrate was not manufacture because boiling, washing, filtering, squeezing, concentrating and packing did not create a commercially distinct product with a new name, character or use. The process merely removed moisture while the tamarind retained its essential character as a processed food preparation. For tariff purposes, the goods were not a vegetable extract under Chapter 13; on the facts, classification under Chapter 20 was held to be correct. The settled test remains that manufacture requires emergence of a new and different product, and a mere change in form or concentration is insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the process of converting raw tamarind into tamarind paste or concentrate amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise law. (ii) Whether tamarind paste or concentrate was correctly classifiable under Chapter 20 or as a vegetable extract under Chapter 13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the process of converting raw tamarind into tamarind paste or concentrate amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: Manufacture requires emergence of a new product having a distinct name, character or use, and not every process or change to raw material qualifies as manufacture. Applying the settled test, the process of boiling, washing, filtering, squeezing, concentrating and packing raw tamarind did not produce a chemically or commercially different product. The tamarind retained its essential character, and the process only removed moisture and produced a refined paste or concentrate.

Conclusion: No process amounting to manufacture was involved.

Issue (ii): Whether tamarind paste or concentrate was correctly classifiable under Chapter 20 or as a vegetable extract under Chapter 13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The process undertaken did not amount to extraction from a vegetable source. The material was washed, boiled and processed into pulp, with water removed as waste, and the product retained the character of a processed tamarind preparation rather than a vegetable extract. On the facts and the relevant tariff notes, the earlier classification under Chapter 20 was held to be correct and the attempt to place the goods under Chapter 13 was rejected.

Conclusion: Tamarind paste or concentrate was correctly classifiable under Chapter 20 and not under Chapter 13.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals failed, while the assessee's appeals succeeded, and the orders adopting Chapter 20 classification and rejecting manufacture were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only when it brings into existence a commercially distinct product with a new name, character or use, and a processed food product that merely loses moisture without changing its essential character is not a vegetable extract for tariff purposes.

---