Purification of chemicals by distillation and recrystallisation was not manufacture because no new commodity emerged.

Distillation and recrystallisation of chemicals that only marginally improved purity and changed grade did not amount to manufacture under central excise law. Manufacture requires emergence of a new and different article with a distinct name, character or use, and the chemicals here remained the same commodity with unchanged composition and identity. Because no commercially different product emerged and the process was merely purification, the activity was not treated as creating a new excisable commodity, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purification of chemicals by distillation and recrystallisation, resulting only in a marginal increase in purity and a change of grade, amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Manufacture requires the emergence of a new and different article having a distinct name, character or use. On the facts, the chemicals continued to remain the same commodity before and after purification, their chemical composition and identity remained unchanged, and only the purity level improved marginally. The Revenue did not adduce material to show that a commercially different product emerged, and the mere improvement in grade or purity did not by itself establish manufacture. The process was only one of purification and did not transform the goods into a new excisable commodity.

Conclusion: The process of distillation and recrystallisation did not amount to manufacture and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed activity was held not to create a new commercial commodity liable to central excise duty, so the assessee's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A process that only purifies an existing chemical and produces no new commodity with a distinct name, character, or use does not amount to manufacture under central excise law.

---