Manufacture and tariff classification of aluminium sheets depend on distinct identity and foil-threshold rules; deeming note inapplicable here.

Cutting, slitting and coating aluminium coils or sheets received for job work did not amount to manufacture because the process did not create a new and distinct article and the goods remained aluminium sheets. The laminated goods were classifiable under CETH 7606, as they were of thickness exceeding 0.2 mm, so they could not fall under CETH 7607 for aluminium foil. Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 76, which deems certain processes on aluminium foil to be manufacture, applied only to heading 7607 goods and was inapplicable to these sheets. The duty demand therefore could not be sustained on either ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cutting, slitting and coating of aluminium coils/sheets received for job work amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise law; (ii) Whether the laminated aluminium sheets were classifiable under CETH 7606 or CETH 7607, and whether Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 76 applied.

Issue (i): Whether cutting, slitting and coating of aluminium coils/sheets received for job work amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product, or a process expressly treated as manufacture by the tariff notes. Applying that test, the process of cutting, slitting and coating aluminium sheets with a thin layer of polycraft or polysurlyne did not bring into existence a new and distinct article. The product remained aluminium sheets and the activity was not incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a different product. The reasoning on manufacture was consistent with the principles governing commercial identity, character and use, as well as the settled distinction between mere processing and manufacture.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether the laminated aluminium sheets were classifiable under CETH 7606 or CETH 7607, and whether Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 76 applied.

Analysis: CETH 7606 covers aluminium plates, sheets and strip of thickness exceeding 0.2 mm, while CETH 7607 covers aluminium foil of thickness not exceeding 0.2 mm. On the materials accepted on record, the goods were found to be of thickness exceeding 0.2 mm and therefore could not fall under heading 7607. Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 76, which deems cutting, slitting and printing of aluminium foils to be manufacture, applies only to products of heading 7607 and not to goods classifiable under 7606. Since the goods were not foils within heading 7607, the deeming provision was inapplicable and the duty demand could not stand on that basis.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under CETH 7606 and Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 76 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The revenue challenge failed on both manufacture and classification, and the order setting aside the demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A processing activity amounts to manufacture only when it creates a new and distinct article or is specifically deemed manufacture by the applicable tariff note; a deeming note limited to aluminium foil cannot be invoked where the goods are aluminium sheets of thickness exceeding the foil threshold.

---