Excise duty on repaired vehicles depends on manufacture, not later clearance or increased assessable value.

Excise duty could not be levied on a jeep cleared after repairs merely because its assessable value and duty rate had increased. The record did not establish that the repairs amounted to manufacture, and in the absence of such a finding the later clearance did not create a fresh duty liability. The demand notice was therefore unsustainable on the facts stated, as duty under central excise law depends on manufacture and not on a subsequent increase in value or rate alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty was payable on the jeep cleared after repairs on the footing that its assessable value and the rate of duty had increased, and whether the repairs amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The demand notice proceeded only on the basis that the value of the jeep and the duty rate had increased. The record did not show that the jeep, when cleared after repairs, had undergone any process amounting to manufacture. In the absence of a finding that the repairs constituted manufacture, no duty could be levied merely because the vehicle was cleared again at a later date.

Conclusion: The demand for duty was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---