Repair and reconditioning of old equipment does not amount to manufacture unless a new excisable commodity emerges.

Repair and reconditioning of old duty-paid equipment by replacing parts was treated as repair work, not as a process that brought a new excisable commodity into existence. Earlier tribunal rulings were followed to the effect that repairing or reconditioning defective machinery or equipment, even with part replacement, does not amount to manufacture unless a new product emerges. On that basis, the activity was held not to attract central excise duty, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether repair and reconditioning of old duty-paid equipment by replacement of parts amounted to manufacture and attracted central excise duty.

Analysis: The activity undertaken was treated as repair of old equipment supplied by customers, not as a process bringing into existence a new excisable commodity. The issue was already settled by earlier tribunal decisions holding that repairing and reconditioning of defective machinery or equipment, even with replacement of parts, does not amount to manufacture unless a new commodity emerges.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture and was not dutiable as such; the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---