Backed aluminium foil was not manufacture, so a second excise levy on the same goods was unsustainable.

Backing duty-paid aluminium foils with plain or printed paper did not amount to manufacture because no distinct, identifiable commodity emerged and the backed foil remained the same commercial product. On that basis, duty could not be levied again on the same excisable goods under the same tariff entry, and the additional excise demand was unsustainable. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund for the relevant pre-1 March 1988 period.

---

---

Issues: Whether backing duty-paid aluminium foils with plain or printed paper amounted to manufacture so as to attract excise duty under Tariff Item No. 27(c), and whether duty could be levied again on the same goods under the same tariff entry.

Analysis: The process of backing merely made the aluminium foil more suitable and attractive for packing. No distinct and identifiable article emerged from the duty-paid foil and the backed foil remained the same commercial commodity. In the absence of manufacture, the department could not levy duty a second time on the same excisable goods falling under the same entry.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and the additional duty demand was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to refund for the relevant pre-1 March 1988 period.

---