https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77786 Drawing wires from wire rods was treated as a process already covered by binding Supreme Court precedent holding that it does not amount to manufacture. In that setting, the appellate authority was required to consider the effect of that precedent before rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. Because the impugned order did not address the binding legal position and the amount already deposited was relevant to compliance, the dismissal for non-compliance was held unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, with the deposit already made treated as sufficient compliance. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77786 Drawing wires from wire rods was treated as a process already covered by binding Supreme Court precedent holding that it does not amount to manufacture. In that setting, the appellate authority was required to consider the effect of that precedent before rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition. Because the impugned order did not address the binding legal position and the amount already deposited was relevant to compliance, the dismissal for non-compliance was held unsustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, with the deposit already made treated as sufficient compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77786