Manufacture test for electrode preparation failed where header attachment did not create a new excisable commodity.

Attaching a header to an aluminium or lead sheet for use as an electrode in electrolysis was held not to amount to manufacture, because the process did not create a new product with a distinct name, character or use, and the item was not shown to be a new marketable commodity. The reasoning also noted that, even if manufacture were assumed, the actual fabrication was carried out by independent job workers, so duty could not be fastened on the appellant on that basis. No excisable commodity emerged and no duty was payable on the electrodes as cleared.

---

---

Issues: Whether attaching a header to an aluminium or lead sheet to form an electrode amounts to manufacture, and if duty is otherwise leviable, whether the appellant can be treated as the manufacturer.

Analysis: The attachment of the header to the sheet was found to be only for facilitating use of the sheet as an electrode during electrolysis and did not bring into existence a new product with a distinct name, character or use. The sheet itself functioned as the electrode in the process, and the resulting item was not shown to be a new marketable commodity. The reasoning also supported the view that, if any manufacture were assumed, the actual fabrication was done by independent job workers and the demand could not be fastened on the appellant on that basis.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture of a new excisable commodity, and no duty was payable on the electrodes as cleared by attachment of the header to the sheet. The appeal succeeded and the demand was set aside.

---