https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96250 Grooving a plain steel roll was treated as manufacture because it produced a distinct commercial commodity, so the goods were prima facie dutiable. The exemption claims nevertheless had to be examined independently before duty liability could be affirmed: Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was relevant to excisable goods made in a workshop within the factory for repair or maintenance use, and Notification No. 217/86-C.E., later replaced by Notification No. 67/95-C.E., covered captively used goods in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of exemption, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:27:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96250 Grooving a plain steel roll was treated as manufacture because it produced a distinct commercial commodity, so the goods were prima facie dutiable. The exemption claims nevertheless had to be examined independently before duty liability could be affirmed: Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was relevant to excisable goods made in a workshop within the factory for repair or maintenance use, and Notification No. 217/86-C.E., later replaced by Notification No. 67/95-C.E., covered captively used goods in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of exemption, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96250