Manufacture and tariff classification in slitting and shearing turns on whether a distinct marketable product emerges.

Slitting and shearing of flat rolled sheets amounts to manufacture only when the process brings into existence a new and distinct marketable product with a different identity, character or use. Where the input and resultant goods remain within the same tariff sub-heading, the activity does not constitute manufacture because no distinct commodity emerges. If the process alters the coils so that the resultant goods fall under a different tariff sub-heading, the issue depends on whether the operation has produced a distinct marketable product; that aspect was left for fresh decision on remand, including consideration of any permissible Modvat credit claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether slitting and shearing of flat rolled sheets in coil form, without altering the width or length of the input sheets, amounts to manufacture where the input and resultant goods remain under the same tariff sub-heading. (ii) Whether slitting and shearing that reduces or alters the width or length of the coils so that the resultant goods fall under a different tariff sub-heading amounts to manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether slitting and shearing of flat rolled sheets in coil form, without altering the width or length of the input sheets, amounts to manufacture where the input and resultant goods remain under the same tariff sub-heading.

Analysis: Manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct article having a different name, character or use. Mere treatment, labour, manipulation, or change is not enough unless transformation into a different commodity takes place. The goods produced by slitting and shearing, on the facts found, remained flat rolled products covered by the same tariff sub-heading, and no new distinct commodity was shown to have emerged.

Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture where the input and resultant goods remained under the same tariff sub-heading.

Issue (ii): Whether slitting and shearing that reduces or alters the width or length of the coils so that the resultant goods fall under a different tariff sub-heading amounts to manufacture.

Analysis: Where the process results in goods falling under a different tariff sub-heading, the question is whether the operation has produced a distinct marketable product. On the facts, the matter required fresh consideration by the proper authority after hearing the assessees, including their alternative claim for Modvat credit if permissible under law. The remand preserved the possibility of treating the resultant goods as manufactured if the factual and tariff position so warranted.

Conclusion: The remand direction on this aspect was upheld and the matter was left for fresh decision by the Assistant Collector.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was maintained, the common challenge failed, and the controversy was left partly concluded in favour of the assessees on the same-sub-heading question while the tariff-different question remained subject to fresh adjudication on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Slitting and shearing amount to manufacture only when the process brings into existence a new and distinct marketable product having a different identity; if the input and resultant goods remain within the same tariff sub-heading without such transformation, manufacture is not established.

---