JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— These are appeals under section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) arise from the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT for short), New Delhi. The question that fell for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the appellant M/s. Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. manufactured weighbridges and as such was liable to duty under the Act.

2. It appears that weighbridges consisted of three different parts, namely, (1) Platform, (2) Load Cells and (3) Indicating system. The contention of the appellant was that he got the platform manufactured from other people. The load cells were imported and the appellant only made the indicator system. In other words, it was the case of the appellant that it manufactured only the indicator system The question, that fell for the Tribunals determination is whether the activity indisputably 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 Tribunals order. That weighbridge had not been excised before is not disputed. The term of the central excise speaks of "weighbridges"; whenever weighbridges are made, those weighbridges are subjected to duty as such. The Tribunal held that by whatever process it became a complete weighbridge as long as a weighbridge has been made and completed, duty has to be paid. According to the Tribunal, though the parts are themselves liable to excise duty and so the complete machine is also a new excisable good. In view of the well-settled principles, the excisable goods are manufactured by the appellant Section 2(f) of the Act provides an inclusive definition and states that the word "manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. So any process by which an object becomes new commercial goods, including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion would be manufactured. Manufacture means bringing into existence new goods. This Court observed in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills, 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, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. The question, therefore, is, whether the activity carried out by the appellant of assembling the three components, of the weighbridge brings into being complete weighbridge which has a-distinctive name, character or use. See also the observations of this Court in Allenburry Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Dalmia (1973) 2 SCR 257 and Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke, (1981) 3 Scale 1790.

3. The appellants contention before the Tribunal was that it was only preparing a part and that part is dutiable as a separate part. The appellant however, did the work of assembling. As a result of the work of the appellant 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 as separate excise goods. That is mistake, a part may be goods as known in the excise laws and may be dutiable. The appellant in this case claims to have manufactured only the indicator system. If the indicator system is a separate part and a duty had been paid on it and if the rules so