Manufacture without tariff change does not justify fresh duty where processed fabrics stay under the same sub-heading.

Float cutting and brushing of woven pile fabrics may amount to manufacture of a commercially distinct product, but no fresh duty is attracted where the processed goods continue to remain classifiable under the same tariff sub-heading as the original fabrics. The note emphasises that tariff classification is decisive: if cut-float and uncut pile fabrics are still woven pile fabrics under the same sub-heading, the department cannot demand duty again on the processed goods under that heading. The stated ratio is that manufacture alone is insufficient for a second levy when the tariff position remains unchanged.

---

---

Issues: Whether float cutting and brushing of woven pile fabrics amounts to manufacture so as to attract duty, and whether the process changes the tariff classification of the goods.

Analysis: The Board's clarification stated that cut-float pile fabrics and uncut pile fabrics remain woven pile fabrics under the same sub-heading, even though float cutting and brushing may amount to manufacture of a commercially distinct product. The decisive point was that the process did not move the goods to a different tariff heading and the finished goods continued to fall under the same sub-heading as the raw material. In such circumstances, no fresh duty could be demanded again under the same heading.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable and the department's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order in favour of the assessee was maintained, and the departmental challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A process may amount to manufacture, but no duty can be imposed again where the processed goods continue to remain classifiable under the same tariff sub-heading as the original goods.

---