https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87647 De-mineralisation of water was treated by majority as manufacture because removal of calcium and magnesium created a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use; the product was therefore classifiable and dutiable under the tariff. The dissent considered the process only purification or softening, retaining the essential identity of water and not creating excisable goods absent manufacture and marketability. On limitation, the majority held that failure to file the required classification list after the new tariff came into force amounted to suppression, so the extended period applied and the demand was not time barred; the dissent would have treated the demand as time barred. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:21:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87647 De-mineralisation of water was treated by majority as manufacture because removal of calcium and magnesium created a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use; the product was therefore classifiable and dutiable under the tariff. The dissent considered the process only purification or softening, retaining the essential identity of water and not creating excisable goods absent manufacture and marketability. On limitation, the majority held that failure to file the required classification list after the new tariff came into force amounted to suppression, so the extended period applied and the demand was not time barred; the dissent would have treated the demand as time barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87647