Timber sawing is not manufacture unless a new commercial commodity emerges with a distinct identity and use.

Sawing round timber or timber logs into planks, beams, sleepers, chips and waste wood does not amount to manufacture unless the process produces a new commercial commodity with a distinct name, character and use. Applying the Section 2(f) test under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the material was found to retain its identity as timber after sawing, so central excise duty was not leviable on the processed timber. The challenge to the show cause notice was not treated as premature because it raised an admitted question of law and no prior factual adjudication was necessary. On that basis, the notices were quashed and enforcement of excise provisions was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sawing round timber or timber logs into planks, beams, sleepers, chips and waste wood amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty. (ii) Whether the writ petition was premature as it was directed against a show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether sawing round timber or timber logs into planks, beams, sleepers, chips and waste wood amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty.

Analysis: Timber logs supplied to the petitioner were converted into sawn timber and allied forms. The applicable test was whether the process brought into existence a new and different commodity with a distinct name, character and use. The material retained its identity as timber even after sawing, and no new commodity emerged. The process therefore did not satisfy the concept of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The process of sawing timber did not amount to manufacture, and excise duty was not leviable on round or sawn timber.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was premature as it was directed against a show cause notice.

Analysis: The dispute turned on an undisputed question of law arising from admitted facts. The challenge was to the very levy of duty on the processing activity, and no factual controversy required prior adjudication before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition was not premature.

Final Conclusion: The notices were quashed and the respondents were restrained from enforcing central excise provisions against the petitioner in respect of the timber in question.

Ratio Decidendi: Processing timber by sawing logs into planks or similar forms does not amount to manufacture unless the process results in a new commercial commodity with a distinct identity.

---