Manufacture under excise law requires a commercially distinct product; tarpaulin made-ups from cutting and stitching were not dutiable.

Manufacture under excise law requires a process that brings into existence a commercially distinct product with a new name, character or use; mere change, processing or value addition is insufficient. Cutting, stitching and fixing eyelets on tarpaulin fabric to make tarpaulin made-ups did not transform the material into a new and different article, because it remained tarpaulin fabric in another form and was not commercially distinct from the original fabric. Classification under a tariff heading alone did not establish manufacture. No central excise duty was leviable on the tarpaulin made-ups.

---

---

Issues: Whether cutting, stitching and fixing eyelets on tarpaulin fabric to make tarpaulin made-ups amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty.

Analysis: Manufacture under the excise law requires a process that brings into existence a commercially distinct product having a new name, character or use. Mere change, processing or value addition is not enough unless the original commodity is transformed into a new and different article. Tarpaulin made-ups remained tarpaulin fabric in a different form, and the operations of cutting, stitching and eyelet-fixing did not alter the basic character of the material or create a product commercially distinct from the original fabric. Classification under the tariff heading by itself did not establish manufacture in the absence of such transformation.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and no central excise duty was leviable on the tarpaulin made-ups.

---