Copper roller engraving treated as manufacture; non-disclosure supported suppression and extended limitation for duty demand.

Engraving and re-engraving of copper rollers was treated as manufacture because the process imparted commercial value and produced a marketable product, not a mere repair. The Tribunal also found that the work was done in the appellants' factory through hired labour, with no basis to treat the worker as an independent contractor, so the appellants were manufacturers. Because the activity was not disclosed through a classification list or licence, suppression was established and the extended period of limitation applied, sustaining the duty demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether engraving and re-engraving of copper rollers amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. (ii) Whether the appellants were manufacturers and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether engraving and re-engraving of copper rollers amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The process undertaken gave the rollers commercial value. The Tribunal followed the view that such engraving and re-engraving is not a mere repair or incidental activity, but a process bringing about a marketable product. The contrary view pressed by the appellants was not accepted in light of the binding High Court decision relied upon by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The process of engraving and re-engraving of copper rollers amounts to manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were manufacturers and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The work was carried out in the appellants' factory through hired labour, and there was nothing to show that the person engaged was an independent contractor. The activity had not been disclosed to the department by filing a classification list or obtaining a licence, and the non-disclosure supported a finding of suppression.

Conclusion: The appellants were manufacturers, and the demand was not time-barred as the extended period of limitation was available.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both manufacture and limitation, and the demand of duty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a process of engraving or re-engraving imparts commercial value to copper rollers, it constitutes manufacture, and non-disclosure of such activity to the department justifies invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---