Manufacture versus repair in re-engraving used printing rollers: job work was treated as a dutiable manufacturing process.

Re-engraving of used printing rollers, involving scrapping part of the surface, polishing and engraving a fresh design, was treated as manufacture because the process produced a commercially distinct article rather than a mere repaired roller. On that basis, the labour charges for the job work were held subject to excise duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 119/75. The contention that the activity was only repair was rejected, and the duty liability was affirmed on the value of the re-engraving work.

---

---

Issues: Whether labour charges recovered for re-engraving used engraved printing rollers attracted duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 119/75, and whether the process amounted to manufacture rather than mere repair.

Analysis: The re-engraving activity involved scrapping a portion of the used roller, polishing the surface, and engraving a fresh design, which together constituted a complex process resulting in a commercially distinct product. The process was held to fall within the meaning of manufacture under section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and not to be a mere repair operation. The duty was therefore leviable on the value of the job work involved.

Conclusion: The re-engraving of used printing rollers was held to be manufacture and the resultant product attracted duty under Item 68 read with Notification No. 119/75; the contention that it was only repair was rejected.

---