Manufacture by repacking and relabelling requires proof; absent evidence, small-scale exemption remains available.

Allegations that a trader's repacking and relabelling of purchased copper sulphate constituted manufacture were rejected because the record contained no reliable evidence of such activity. The authorities' findings rested on verification of statements and invoices, and they consistently noted that there was no substantiation of brand-related clearances or any manufacturing activity at the depot. In the absence of material proving manufacture, the Department failed to displace the factual findings against it, and the small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's activity of alleged repacking and relabelling of copper sulphate purchased from other dealers amounted to manufacture so as to affect eligibility for small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The record did not show any reliable evidence that the respondent had carried out repacking or relabelling of copper sulphate purchased from other suppliers. The findings of the authorities below were based on verification and appraisal of statements and invoices, and they consistently recorded that there was no substantiation of the alleged brand-related clearances or any manufacturing activity at the depot. In the absence of material proving such activity, the Department failed to dislodge the factual findings recorded against it.

Conclusion: The allegation of manufacture by repacking or relabelling was not proved, and the respondent remained entitled to the exemption; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---