Customer-owned cylinder gas refilling was not manufacture, as the activity was treated as post-production removal, not autonomous repacking.

Customer-directed filling of gas into customer-owned smaller cylinders did not amount to manufacture or deemed manufacture under the tariff note because the activity was not a continuous or autonomous repacking operation by the assessee. The containers were supplied by customers, bore no assessee marking, and the refilling was treated as a post-production mode of removal rather than the independent treatment contemplated by the deeming provision. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the lower authorities' order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether filling gas into smaller cylinders supplied by customers amounted to manufacture or deemed manufacture under the relevant chapter note, so as to attract duty and penalty.

Analysis: The activity was found to be contingent on customer-driven preference and not a continuous or autonomous repacking activity of the assessee. The containers were supplied by customers and bore no marking of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the cited precedents did not match the facts of the present dispute. It further held that the refilling of gas into customer-provided containers was comparable to a post-production mode of removal and did not constitute the kind of independent treatment contemplated by the deeming provision.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture or deemed manufacture, and the demand as well as the penalty were held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty confirmed by the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customer-directed filling of gas into customer-owned containers, undertaken after production and not as an autonomous repacking activity of the assessee, does not by itself constitute manufacture or deemed manufacture under the tariff note.

---