Supreme Court: Vessel repairs not 'manufacture'. Refund granted.

The Supreme Court held that re-rubberising and relining of old vessels did not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, both before and after the specified date of 14th March, 1986. The appellant was entitled to a refund of duties collected as the law remained unchanged. The Court directed the refund claim to be resolved within three months without costs, rejecting the Solicitor General's argument on the issue of limitation.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of whether re-rubberising and relining of old and used vessels amounts to 'manufacture' for the purpose of levy of duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the justifiability of the cut-off date of 14th March, 1986.

Summary:
- The appellant was informed by the Superintendent of Central Excise that re-rubberising and relining of old vessels would not amount to 'manufacture' u/s 2(f) of the Act from 14th March, 1986.
- The appellant contested the cut-off date, arguing that the process remained the same before and after the specified date.
- The Supreme Court held that the process of re-rubberising and relining did not amount to manufacture both before and after 14th March, 1986, as the law remained unchanged, entitling the appellant to refund of duties collected.
- The issue of limitation on the claim of refund was raised by the Solicitor General, but the Court found no such question had been previously raised, directing the refund claim to be resolved within three months without costs.

---