Manufacture and excise on hydrogen gas: cylinder filling alone did not create a new excisable commodity.

Mere compression, drying and filling of hydrogen gas into cylinders did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes because the goods received and cleared remained hydrogen gas, with only the mode of delivery changing from pipeline to cylinders. The unrebutted evidence showed the gas was capable of use for hydrogenation, and later departmental literature could not displace that evidence. Tariff Heading 28.04 did not then distinguish compressed hydrogen gas from other hydrogen gas, so no new commercially distinct commodity emerged and no additional duty arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether compressing, drying, and filling hydrogen gas into cylinders amounts to manufacture of a new excisable commodity so as to attract additional central excise duty.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed that the goods received and the goods cleared remained hydrogen gas, and the only change was the form of delivery from pipeline to cylinders. The affidavit filed in the adjudication proceedings stated that the gas received was capable of being used for hydrogenation, and that evidence was not rebutted. The Tribunal also held that the departmental literature relied upon at the appellate stage could not be used to displace the appellant's unrebutted evidence. It further noted that Tariff Heading 28.04 did not, during the relevant period, distinguish compressed hydrogen gas from other hydrogen gas, and therefore mere filling into cylinders did not create a new commodity.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture of a new commodity, and no further duty liability arose on the hydrogen gas cleared in cylinders.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere compression, drying, and filling of an already excisable gas into cylinders, without emergence of a commercially distinct new product, does not constitute manufacture for central excise purposes.

---