https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93522 Mounting FRP bodies on chassis/vehicles received under Rule 57F(2) was not treated as manufacture because the process did not create a new commodity with a different name, character or use. The Tribunal also applied the principle that, where the principal manufacturer clears the finished vehicles on payment of duty including the FRP top and job charges, the excise burden should not effectively be imposed twice in a way that defeats the credit scheme. On that basis, the central excise demand and penalty were held unsustainable. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93522 Mounting FRP bodies on chassis/vehicles received under Rule 57F(2) was not treated as manufacture because the process did not create a new commodity with a different name, character or use. The Tribunal also applied the principle that, where the principal manufacturer clears the finished vehicles on payment of duty including the FRP top and job charges, the excise burden should not effectively be imposed twice in a way that defeats the credit scheme. On that basis, the central excise demand and penalty were held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93522