Trade name branding on duty-paid goods does not amount to manufacture absent any further process changing their character.

Affixing a trade name or trade mark on duty-paid ball bearings purchased from other manufacturers did not amount to manufacture, because the goods were merely branded in the petitioners' premises without any further process changing their character. The view that such branding was incidental or ancillary to manufacture was rejected, so no central excise licence or duty liability arose on that activity.

---

---

Issues: Whether affixing a trade name or trade mark on duty-paid ball bearings purchased from other manufacturers amounts to manufacture so as to require a central excise licence and liability to duty.

Analysis: The goods were purchased after duty payment, and only the petitioners' trade mark was inscribed on them in their premises. Such mere branding, without any special agreement or further process altering the character of the goods, was held not to amount to manufacture. The view taken by the lower authorities that the branding was incidental or ancillary to manufacture was not accepted.

Conclusion: Mere putting of a trade name on duty-paid ball bearings purchased from other manufacturers does not constitute manufacture, and the revision was allowed.

---