Re-refining used oil is not manufacture where no new commercially distinct product emerges, so excise duty fails.

Re-refining or reprocessing used lubricating oil and waste oil into usable oil did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes because the process did not produce a new commercially distinct product. The material was subjected to vacuum distillation, centrifuging, and removal of moisture, carbon, and impurities, but the Tribunal treated the issue as covered by earlier decisions holding that reclamation of usable oil from used oil is not manufacture. As a result, Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 did not apply and the duty demand could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process of re-refining or reprocessing used lubricating oil and waste oil into a marketable product amounted to manufacture attracting central excise duty.

Analysis: The appellant procured used oil and subjected it to vacuum distillation, centrifuging and removal of moisture, carbon and other impurities. The dispute turned on whether this processing changed the character and use of the material so as to bring it within Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 and render it dutiable as manufacture. The issue was treated as identical to earlier Tribunal decisions holding that reclamation of usable oil from used oil does not amount to manufacture, and that view was followed.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and the demand of duty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Reclamation or re-refining of used oil into usable oil, without emergence of a new commercially distinct product, does not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes.

---