https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82042 Exemption under Notification No. 77/83 depended on the capital investment in the industrial unit where the cleared goods were manufactured, so the relevant inquiry was confined to that unit. The Department failed to show that two premises were in substance one unit, and Rule 56B permissions supported removal of semi-finished goods for further processing at another premises without duty. It also did not prove that aggregate investment crossed the prescribed limit. The broader definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) could not override the specific wording of the exemption notification, so the exemption remained available and the demand failed. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:44:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82042 Exemption under Notification No. 77/83 depended on the capital investment in the industrial unit where the cleared goods were manufactured, so the relevant inquiry was confined to that unit. The Department failed to show that two premises were in substance one unit, and Rule 56B permissions supported removal of semi-finished goods for further processing at another premises without duty. It also did not prove that aggregate investment crossed the prescribed limit. The broader definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) could not override the specific wording of the exemption notification, so the exemption remained available and the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82042