https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88167 Excisability depended on whether the goods were the result of manufacture and whether a prior recourse to Rule 56C barred the appellant from denying manufacture. The Tribunal treated excisability as a legal question and held that earlier use of Rule 56C did not preclude the appellant from contending that no manufacturing activity had occurred. Following its earlier decision on identical goods, it found that no new commercially distinct commodity came into existence and the Revenue had not established manufacture. The goods were therefore not excisable, and the duty demand was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:35:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88167 Excisability depended on whether the goods were the result of manufacture and whether a prior recourse to Rule 56C barred the appellant from denying manufacture. The Tribunal treated excisability as a legal question and held that earlier use of Rule 56C did not preclude the appellant from contending that no manufacturing activity had occurred. Following its earlier decision on identical goods, it found that no new commercially distinct commodity came into existence and the Revenue had not established manufacture. The goods were therefore not excisable, and the duty demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88167