https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82320 Insulation of copper strips already classified and duty-paid under Tariff Item 26A did not create a new excisable product or justify a second levy under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court view, later followed in another Tribunal decision, that mere insulation does not by itself attract fresh duty unless the process results in a distinct excisable product. On that basis, the insulated strips were held outside a second levy under Tariff Item 68 and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 23 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:19:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82320 Insulation of copper strips already classified and duty-paid under Tariff Item 26A did not create a new excisable product or justify a second levy under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court view, later followed in another Tribunal decision, that mere insulation does not by itself attract fresh duty unless the process results in a distinct excisable product. On that basis, the insulated strips were held outside a second levy under Tariff Item 68 and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82320