https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85361 Re-glass lining of old and used glass-lined equipment was treated as manufacture because the returned vessels underwent stripping of the old lining, application of powder glass frit, uniform coating, and firing, resulting in a fresh lining in substance identical to the original lining process. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on re-rubbering and re-lining was read as deciding only that there was no cut-off basis for a departmental change in view, not that such processes can never amount to manufacture. The refund plea on limitation was not pressed, and the refund claim was held not maintainable. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85361 Re-glass lining of old and used glass-lined equipment was treated as manufacture because the returned vessels underwent stripping of the old lining, application of powder glass frit, uniform coating, and firing, resulting in a fresh lining in substance identical to the original lining process. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on re-rubbering and re-lining was read as deciding only that there was no cut-off basis for a departmental change in view, not that such processes can never amount to manufacture. The refund plea on limitation was not pressed, and the refund claim was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85361