Manufacture requires a new and distinct commodity; fabrication of steel for transmission towers was not dutiable.

Cutting, bending, punching and galvanising duty-paid steel angles, plates, channels and rods for erection of transmission towers did not amount to manufacture because the operations did not create a new and distinct commodity with a separate name, character or use. The materials remained structural steel members, were not shown to be marketed as transmission-tower components, and the work was only fabrication under a works contract; the tower itself did not come into existence at the factory. Accordingly, the inclusive definition of manufacture could not be invoked and the goods were not chargeable to duty under Item 68.

---

---

Issues: Whether cutting, bending, punching and galvanising of steel angles, plates, channels and rods supplied for erection of transmission towers amounted to manufacture so as to attract duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The processes applied to the duty-paid steel materials did not bring into existence a new and distinct commodity with a separate name, character or use. The materials continued to remain structural steel members, and there was no evidence that they were sold or known in the market as component parts of a transmission tower. The work undertaken was essentially fabrication pursuant to a works contract for erection of transmission towers, and the tower itself did not come into existence at the factory. The inclusive definition of manufacture could not extend to these operations in the absence of a real transformation of the goods.

Conclusion: The processes did not amount to manufacture and the goods were not chargeable to duty under Item 68.

---