https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97462 Recovery of tartaric acid from L2 ABT did not amount to manufacture because the process did not bring into existence a new commercially known commodity with a distinct name, character or use. On the evidence, the activity was treated as recovery rather than transformation, and the product remained tartaric acid. As no new excisable product emerged, central excise duty was not attracted and the duty demand was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97462 Recovery of tartaric acid from L2 ABT did not amount to manufacture because the process did not bring into existence a new commercially known commodity with a distinct name, character or use. On the evidence, the activity was treated as recovery rather than transformation, and the product remained tartaric acid. As no new excisable product emerged, central excise duty was not attracted and the duty demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97462