Manufacture by processing raw material into a distinct commodity led shikakai powder to remain classifiable as excisable goods.

Processing shikakai by powdering it through labour or pounding was treated as manufacture because it produced a separate and distinct commercial commodity. On that basis, shikakai powder was classifiable as an excisable product under the relevant tariff entry, including the residuary item "others". The contrary sales tax decision was not followed because it did not address the specific tariff entry or the manufacture question. The challenge therefore failed, and the treatment of shikakai powder as a taxable product was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether shikakai powder is a distinct excisable commodity and whether the process of converting shikakai into powder amounts to manufacture under the tariff entry relied upon.

Analysis: The Court followed the earlier direct decision holding that powdering shikakai by labour and pounding or similar process produces shikakai powder as a separate and distinct commodity. Once manufacture is found, the product falls within the relevant tariff chapter under the residuary item "others". The contrary sales tax decision was not preferred because it did not specifically consider the precise tariff entry or the question of manufacture.

Conclusion: The process amounts to manufacture and shikakai powder is classifiable as an excisable commodity; the challenge fails.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal was rejected and the order treating shikakai powder as a taxable product was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where processing converts a raw material into a separate and distinct commercial commodity, the process constitutes manufacture and the resulting product is liable to be classified accordingly under the tariff.

---