Manufacture is a fact-specific question where the process alone governs whether a reference on law is maintainable.

Whether repairing, reconditioning, remaking and replacing parts in damaged transformers amounted to manufacture depended on the actual processes undertaken and was treated as a question of fact. The Tribunal's finding that no manufacture occurred was based solely on the case-specific facts and did not involve interpretation of law. As no referable question of law arose under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the reference application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was maintainable on the ground that the activity of repairing, reconditioning, remaking and replacement of parts in damaged transformers amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The application turned on whether the Tribunal's finding that no manufacture was involved raised any question of law. The Court held that whether a particular process amounts to manufacture depends on the exact processes undertaken and is inherently factual, varying from case to case. Since the Tribunal's conclusion rested entirely on the facts of the case and did not involve interpretation of law, no referable question of law arose.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for reference, and the application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The reference application failed because the dispute was factual and the Tribunal's finding on manufacture was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a process amounts to manufacture is ordinarily a question of fact dependent on the processes undertaken, and where the decision rests solely on facts without interpretation of law, no referable question of law arises.

---