Manufacture test upheld for asbestos fibre: processing of mined rock created a distinct marketable product, validating excise and related customs duty.

Processing asbestos rock into commercially saleable asbestos fibre was held to be manufacture because the mined material underwent crushing, screening, cleaning and further processing until a new, distinct and marketable article emerged. The court applied the settled test of transformation into a different commodity with a separate name, character or use, and treated the Tariff Item specifically covering asbestos fibre as reinforcing Parliament's intent to tax the product as excisable goods. Once the excise levy was upheld, the challenge to additional customs duty based on a like article also failed, and the refund claim could not survive as a consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the process of obtaining asbestos fibre from asbestos rock amounted to mining operation or manufacture, and whether asbestos fibre was validly subjected to excise duty under Tariff Item 22F; (ii) Whether the levy of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the claim for refund could survive if the excise levy was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the process of obtaining asbestos fibre from asbestos rock amounted to mining operation or manufacture, and whether asbestos fibre was validly subjected to excise duty under Tariff Item 22F.

Analysis: The process began with extraction of asbestos rock, but the article recovered from the mine was not asbestos fibre in marketable form. The rock was crushed, screened, cleaned, separated from dust and stone particles, and further processed through mills until a commercially saleable asbestos fibre emerged. On the settled test of manufacture, there must be transformation into a new and different article having a distinctive name, character or use, and mere treatment is insufficient unless a marketable commodity comes into existence. The Court found that asbestos fibre was a distinct marketable product, unlike the mined rock, and that the legislative inclusion of asbestos fibre in Tariff Item 22F, together with the explanatory deeming provision, reinforced the conclusion that Parliament treated the process as manufacture. The attempt to characterise the entire operation as mining was rejected.

Conclusion: The process amounted to manufacture, not merely mining, and the excise levy on asbestos fibre was validly imposed in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the claim for refund could survive if the excise levy was valid.

Analysis: The additional customs duty was treated as consequential to the valid excise levy on a like article manufactured in India. Since the excise duty on asbestos fibre was upheld, the basis for challenging the additional customs duty disappeared. The claim for refund also could not succeed once the levy itself was sustained; in any event, the refund issue was only consequential and did not call for separate relief after the primary challenge failed.

Conclusion: The additional customs duty challenge failed and the refund claim was rejected, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on the merits because asbestos fibre was held to be an excisable manufactured product, and the consequential customs duty and refund claims also did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing converts mined raw material into a commercially distinct and marketable article, the operation amounts to manufacture for excise purposes, and a legislative deeming entry specifically covering that article supports the validity of the levy.

---