Repair versus manufacture: replacing worn-out saw segments was held not to create a new excisable product.

Replacing worn-out segments of an old circular saw by brazing new segments did not amount to manufacture, because the work only removed damaged parts and restored the existing saw. Mere repair, reconditioning or upgrading of an article is not manufacture unless a new excisable product comes into existence. The fact that some steps resembled those used in original manufacture did not change the character of the activity. The result remained the old circular saw with replacement segments, with no new product emerging, so no excise duty was payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether replacing worn out segments of an old circular saw by brazing new segments amounts to manufacture so as to attract excise duty on the saw said to emerge.

Analysis: The activity consisted only of removing damaged segments and fitting new ones to the old saw. Mere repair, reconditioning or upgrading of an existing article does not amount to manufacture unless a new excisable product comes into existence. Although the replacement process involved some steps used in the original manufacture, that by itself did not change the character of the work from repair into manufacture. The end result remained the old circular saw with a new segment, and no new product emerged.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and no excise duty was payable on any alleged new circular saw emerging from the repair activity; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Repair or replacement of a component in an existing article does not constitute manufacture unless it results in emergence of a new excisable product.

---