Manufacture under Section Note 6 requires unfinished goods with essential character; mere assembly, repair, or refurbishing is not enough.

Assembly of imported and indigenously procured components constitutes manufacture under Section Note 6 of Section XVI only where incomplete or unfinished goods already have the essential character of the finished article and a further process converts them into the complete product; mere integration and installation without that factual foundation is insufficient, so the duty demand on kitting failed. Dismantling old machines, retrieving usable parts, and reusing them to restore working condition was treated as repair or refurbishment rather than the emergence of a new manufactured product, so the related duty demand and personal penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the kitting activity undertaken by assembling imported and indigenously procured components amounted to manufacture under Section Note 6 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) Whether the refurbishing of old machines at Jolly Godown amounted to manufacture and supported the duty demand and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the kitting activity undertaken by assembling imported and indigenously procured components amounted to manufacture under Section Note 6 of Section XVI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section Note 6 applies only where goods are incomplete or unfinished but already have the essential character of the complete or finished article, and a further process converts them into a complete or finished article. The materials on record did not identify which components had the essential character of the final product, in what respect they were incomplete or unfinished, or which process transformed them into finished goods. Mere integration and installation of components, without the factual foundation required by the Note, was insufficient to treat the activity as manufacture.

Conclusion: The kitting activity did not amount to manufacture, and the duty demand based on that allegation was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refurbishing of old machines at Jolly Godown amounted to manufacture and supported the duty demand and penalties.

Analysis: The refurbishing activity consisted of dismantling old machines, retrieving usable parts, and reusing them to repair and make machines workable. On the facts, this was repair or restoration of existing machines and not the emergence of a new manufactured product. The demand founded on this activity could not be sustained, and once the duty demands failed, the personal penalties also had no independent basis.

Conclusion: The refurbishing activity did not amount to manufacture, and the related duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: An activity amounts to manufacture under Section Note 6 of Section XVI only when incomplete or unfinished goods having the essential character of the finished article are transformed into a complete article; mere assembly, installation, repair, or refurbishing without such factual foundation does not constitute manufacture.

---