Manufacture requires a distinct product in name, character and use; sintering ore fines alone did not create one.

Sintering manganese ore fines into lumps was treated as a mere agglomeration process that did not bring about any chemical change. The fines and the sintered lumps retained the same character and continued to be used for the same purpose in ferro-manganese production. A change only in physical form or size, without emergence of a product distinct in name, character and use, does not constitute manufacture. On that basis, no new excisable product arose and the central excise duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the process of sintering manganese ore fines into lumps amounted to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty.

Analysis: The evidence and technical material showed that sintering merely agglomerated fine particles into a coarser form without causing any chemical change. The fines and the sintered lumps retained the same character and were used for the same end purpose in ferro-manganese production. A mere change in physical form or size, without emergence of a product that is substantially different in name, character and use, does not amount to manufacture.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and no new excisable product emerged. The demand of duty was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---