https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73689 Cutting, punching and galvanising duty-paid steel angles for erection of transmission towers was treated as preparation of structural material, not as a process producing a new and distinct excisable commodity. On that reasoning, the activity was held not to amount to manufacture in the excise sense, and classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68 was rejected because the goods continued to fall within Tariff Item 26AA. Where duty had already been paid under Tariff Item 26AA, duty debited under the wrong heading was considered refundable, with consequential relief following from the classification finding. en-us Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73689 Cutting, punching and galvanising duty-paid steel angles for erection of transmission towers was treated as preparation of structural material, not as a process producing a new and distinct excisable commodity. On that reasoning, the activity was held not to amount to manufacture in the excise sense, and classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68 was rejected because the goods continued to fall within Tariff Item 26AA. Where duty had already been paid under Tariff Item 26AA, duty debited under the wrong heading was considered refundable, with consequential relief following from the classification finding. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73689