Manufacture as the taxable event governs excise liability for aluminium containers cleared after the tariff amendment.

Printed, lacquered and printed-and-lacquered aluminium containers manufactured before 19-6-1980 were not brought within manufacture by the amended tariff and amended definition in Section 2(f), so they did not become excisable merely because they were cleared later. Manufacture remained the taxable event, and Rule 9A(ii) affected only the stage of collection and the rate on removal where goods were already liable to duty. As the containers were not dutiable at manufacture, denial of Notification No. 93/80 relief solely because clearance occurred after the amendment was unsustainable. The containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 therefore remained outside duty liability, with consequential relief available.

---

---

Issues: Whether printed, lacquered or printed-and-lacquered aluminium containers manufactured before 18-6-1980 but cleared thereafter were liable to Central Excise duty under the amended tariff and amended definition of manufacture, and whether the benefit of Notification No. 93/80 was available.

Analysis: The amendment to Item 27(f) of the Central Excise Tariff and to Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 brought lacquering or printing of plain aluminium containers within the scope of manufacture only from 19-6-1980. Accordingly, goods manufactured before that date did not become excisable merely because they were cleared later. The principle applied was that manufacture is the taxable event, while Rule 9A(ii) governs the stage of collection and the rate applicable on removal only where the goods are already excisable. Since the goods in question were not dutiable at the time of manufacture, the denial of relief under Notification No. 93/80 on the ground of later clearance was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 were not liable to duty, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

---