https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73544 Re-rubberisation of worn-out rubberised M.S. rims was treated as a process of reworking, not manufacture, because it did not bring into existence a commercially distinct product under Section 2(f). Applying the Supreme Court ratio on re-rubberising and re-lining old rollers, the activity was held outside central excise liability. As a result, excise duty was not leviable on the process, and any duty already paid was stated to be refundable. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on the manufacture question. en-us Mon, 21 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:23:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73544 Re-rubberisation of worn-out rubberised M.S. rims was treated as a process of reworking, not manufacture, because it did not bring into existence a commercially distinct product under Section 2(f). Applying the Supreme Court ratio on re-rubberising and re-lining old rollers, the activity was held outside central excise liability. As a result, excise duty was not leviable on the process, and any duty already paid was stated to be refundable. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on the manufacture question. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73544