Manufacture by stranding wire confirmed where the finished product had distinct character and marketability; extended limitation also sustained.

Stranding galvanised single wire into galvanised stranded wire was treated as manufacture because the processed goods were commercially distinct from the input, with a different name, character, utility and marketability. The earlier wire-drawing authorities were held inapplicable on the facts. On limitation and penalty, admissions by the managing director, documentary records and account inconsistencies supported rejection of the job-work explanation and justified invocation of the extended period; the duty demand was sustained, and the penalty was upheld in principle but reduced on appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the process of stranding of galvanised single wire amounts to manufacture. (ii) Whether the duty demand, invocation of the extended period, and penalty were sustainable on the facts, including the plea that the work was done through job workers.

Issue (i): Whether the process of stranding of galvanised single wire amounts to manufacture.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the process produced galvanized stranded wire from galvanized single wire on a stranding machine. The resulting product was found to be different in strength, utility, and marketability from the raw material, with a distinct name, character, and use. The case law relied upon for drawing or redrawing wire from wire rod was held to be inapplicable to the facts, and the reasoning supporting treatment of stranded wire as a manufactured product was accepted.

Conclusion: The process of stranding amounts to manufacture, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand, invocation of the extended period, and penalty were sustainable on the facts, including the plea that the work was done through job workers.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority relied on the managing director's admission, the documentary material, and the inconsistencies in the assessees' accounts to reject the claim that the goods were merely got done through job workers and to sustain the longer limitation period. The duty demand on shortages was not contested, and the personal penalty on the managing director was also not pressed. On penalty, the authority found the facts sufficient to sustain penal consequences but reduced the quantum in appeal.

Conclusion: The duty demand and invocation of the extended period were sustained, while the penalty on the assessee was reduced; the result was partly against the assessee and partly in its favour.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty, while the findings on manufacture, duty liability, and limitation were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a process yields a commercially distinct product with different utility and marketability, it amounts to manufacture; admissions and corroborative records may justify the extended period and penal consequences, though penalty may be modified on the facts.

---