Manufacture test for assembled goods failed where imported decks remained the same commodity and no excise duty was payable.

Mounting imported ready-to-use record changer decks on a wooden base with or without a cover did not amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the decks were already mechanically, electrically and functionally complete and remained the same commodity after assembly. The addition of the base was only a method of presentation or sale and did not create a new article with a distinct name, character or use. Applying the test of transformation into a new and different product, the court held that no excise duty was leviable on the assembled auto-changers and that the assessee was entitled to refund; Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not bar the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether fixing imported ready-to-use record changer decks on a wooden base with a cover amounted to manufacture of a new and different article under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether excise duty was therefore payable on the assembled product.

Analysis: The imported decks were mechanically, electrically and functionally complete when imported and remained the same commodity after being mounted on a wooden base with or without a cover. The addition of the base was only a method of presentation or sale and did not bring into existence any new product with a distinct name, character or use. The controlling test of manufacture is whether a new and different article emerges through transformation, and that test was not satisfied here. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also held to have no application to defeat the claim for refund.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture, no excise duty was leviable on the assembled auto-changers, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the duty collected.

---