Manufacture and tariff classification of drilled iron and steel angles failed where no distinct market identity as structurals was proved.

Cutting iron and steel angles to size and drilling holes did not amount to manufacture because the processed goods did not emerge with a new name, character or use. In this classification dispute, the Revenue had to prove by evidence that the goods were recognised in the market as a distinct commodity and as structurals under tariff sub-heading 7308.90, but no such evidence was produced. On the material available, the articles remained drilled iron and steel angles, and they were not established as structurals. The appeal therefore succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether cutting of iron and steel angles and drilling holes therein amounts to manufacture so as to create a new commodity, and whether the resultant goods are classifiable as structurals under tariff sub-heading 7308.90.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the process of cutting the angles to size and drilling holes brought into existence goods with a different name, character or use. The Revenue asserted that the processed goods were known in trade as posts for fencing and therefore fell under structurals, but no separate tariff entry existed for such posts. In a classification dispute of this nature, the burden lay on the Revenue to show by evidence that the goods were recognised in the market as a distinct commodity and as structurals. No such evidence was produced. On the material available, the processed goods remained only drilled iron and steel angles.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture of a new commodity, and the goods were not shown to be classifiable as structurals under tariff sub-heading 7308.90. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---