TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (9) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and S. Ranganathan, JJ. Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor-General (A.K. Srivastava and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates, with him), for the respondent. A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate (B. Parthasarathi, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. [Judgment per: Sabyasachi Mukhaji J.]. - These are appeals under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called "the Act") arise fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out by the appellant amounted to manufacture and what does it manufacture? It has been found that "the appellant brought the three components together at site, fitted and assembled them together so that they can work as one machine and as such the appellant manufactured and created a new weighbridge". The aforesaid findings appear in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order. That weighbridge ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commercial goods, including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion would be manufacture. Manufacture means bringing into existence new goods. This Court observed in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills 1977 (1) ELT 199 (S.C.) = (1963 Suppl. 1 SCR 586) that manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a new product known in the market and known under the excise item "weighbridge" comes into being. The appellant will become a manufacturer of that product and as such liable to duty. That is precisely what the Tribunal found on the facts of the case. The appellant seems to have been obsessed by the idea that as a part of machine is liable to duty then the whole end product should not be dutiable....