https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94456 Doubling or multifolding duty-paid single yarn did not amount to manufacture because it did not result in a new and distinct commodity. The settled principle applied was that excise duty can arise only where a process brings into existence a marketable new product; absent a new product, marketability does not arise independently. The extended definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the chapter notes did not change that position on these facts. Accordingly, the duty demand based on doubling and multifolding yarn was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:06:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94456 Doubling or multifolding duty-paid single yarn did not amount to manufacture because it did not result in a new and distinct commodity. The settled principle applied was that excise duty can arise only where a process brings into existence a marketable new product; absent a new product, marketability does not arise independently. The extended definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the chapter notes did not change that position on these facts. Accordingly, the duty demand based on doubling and multifolding yarn was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94456