Repair of old goods is not manufacture, so central excise duty cannot be levied on their post-repair clearance.

Mere repair of old goods does not amount to manufacture, so central excise duty is not attracted on clearance after repair. The decisive question is whether the activity results in emergence of a manufactured product; where the goods are only repaired and no new product comes into existence, the excise levy fails. Any separate issue concerning the notification was not challenged by the Revenue and does not alter the result.

---

---

Issues: Whether repair of old goods amounts to manufacture so as to attract central excise duty.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that even assuming the goods were not duty-paid for the purposes of Rule 173H, the decisive question was whether the activity undertaken on the old items resulted in manufacture. It accepted the view that mere repair of old goods does not constitute manufacture, and therefore no excise duty can be levied on their clearance after repair. The Revenue had no challenge to the separate finding on the notification issue.

Conclusion: Repair of old goods does not amount to manufacture, and no duty is leviable on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere repair of old goods, without emergence of a manufactured product, does not attract excise duty.

---