https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85180 Hydro-extraction carried out after dyeing and bleaching of cotton fabrics was not treated as an incidental or ancillary process to manufacture because the processed fabrics had already come into existence before the water was extracted. The later use of a hydro-extractor, even with power, did not alter the character of the earlier processing or displace the exemption claimed for the assessee. On these facts, the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable because the extraction step was not part of the completion of manufacture. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:41:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85180 Hydro-extraction carried out after dyeing and bleaching of cotton fabrics was not treated as an incidental or ancillary process to manufacture because the processed fabrics had already come into existence before the water was extracted. The later use of a hydro-extractor, even with power, did not alter the character of the earlier processing or displace the exemption claimed for the assessee. On these facts, the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable because the extraction step was not part of the completion of manufacture. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85180