As per case facts, the assessee, a manufacturer of plastic goods, was converting plastic granules into moulding powder. Excise officers found this activity and issued show-cause notices, alleging that this ... process was 'manufacture' and the resulting powder 'excisable goods,' thus demanding duty and invoking an extended limitation period. The assessee disputed this, arguing that it was not manufacture, the powder was not marketable, and the extended limitation period was wrongly applied. The question arose whether the pulverization of plastic granules into moulding powder constitutes 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if the powder is an 'excisable product.' The Court also considered the validity of invoking an extended limitation period. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the process of pulverization converting granules into moulding powder indeed constitutes 'manufacture' as per the Act and Tariff Notes, and the moulding powder is marketable and therefore 'excisable goods.' While the show-cause notice for an earlier period was deemed beyond limitation, the Court remitted the valuation and limitation questions for a later show-cause notice back to the Adjudication Authority for fresh consideration under amended provisions.