Manufacture and marketability disputes require fresh evidence when the record is incomplete; penalty and limitation must also be reconsidered.

Where the appellate record is insufficient to determine whether work done on steel tubular poles amounts to manufacture of a new excisable product, the dispute must be remanded for fresh adjudication on evidence. The Tribunal noted prior rulings on cutting, drilling and lengthening, but held that each case turns on its own facts and the missing original records prevented a final finding on manufacture and marketability. The original authority was directed to reconsider the assessee's objections on non-manufacture, non-classifiability, penalty liability, bona fide belief and limitation, including whether the extended period could be invoked.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute concerning excisability of the process undertaken on steel tubular poles required remand for de novo consideration, including the questions of manufacture, marketability, penalty and limitation.

Analysis: Prior Tribunal rulings on cutting, drilling or lengthening of poles were noted, but the matter was required to be reconsidered in the light of the Supreme Court's approach that each case must be examined on its own facts. As the original records regarding the manufacturing process and marketability were not available before the Tribunal, it was not in a position to finally decide whether the activity resulted in a new excisable product. The assessee's pleas regarding absence of manufacture, non-classifiability, absence of penalty liability, bona fide belief and non-invocation of the extended period were directed to be examined by the original authority after allowing both sides to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, penalty and limitation issues were left for fresh determination by the original authority, with the assessee obtaining a remand for reconsideration on all material aspects.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record before the appellate forum is insufficient to determine manufacture and marketability, the dispute must be sent back for fresh adjudication on evidence, including connected questions of penalty and limitation.

---