Manufacture test for transmission tower parts: fabrication from duty-paid inputs did not create a new product and escaped excise duty.

Cutting, drilling, punching, bending and welding duty-paid MS angles, channels and plates to fabricate transmission tower parts did not amount to manufacture because the process did not bring into existence a new and distinct commercially identifiable product with a different name, character or use. The analysis also notes that the Supreme Court had already declined to interfere in the appellant's earlier matter on the same controversy, and that concluded position could not be displaced by reliance on a contrary larger bench view. The resulting items were therefore not liable to central excise duty, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether cutting, drilling, punching, bending and welding duty-paid MS angles, channels and plates to fabricate transmission tower parts amounts to manufacture and attracts central excise duty.

Analysis: The disputed processes were carried out on duty-paid inputs and resulted in items used as parts of transmission towers. The controlling test was whether a new and distinct commercially identifiable product with a different name, character or use emerged. The decision also took note that the Supreme Court had already declined to interfere in the appellant's own earlier matter on the same controversy, and that the binding effect of that decision could not be displaced by reliance on a contrary larger bench view when the issue stood concluded in the appellant's own case.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture and the resulting items were not liable to central excise duty; the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

---