https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98198 The appeals contested the rejection of refund claims based on the process of cutting, slitting, and perforation of jumbo rolls into cinematographic film, with the Commissioner holding these processes as constituting manufacture. The Commissioner's view that jumbo rolls were not marketable until processed led to the rejection of refund claims, despite appellant's reliance on relevant judgments. The rejection of refund claims was influenced by the Commissioner's stance on cited judgments and the Board's Circular. The issue of whether slitting jumbo rolls amounted to manufacture, unjust enrichment concerns, and the need for a Larger Bench reference due to conflicting judgments were key aspects addressed in the legal analysis. en-us Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:04:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98198 The appeals contested the rejection of refund claims based on the process of cutting, slitting, and perforation of jumbo rolls into cinematographic film, with the Commissioner holding these processes as constituting manufacture. The Commissioner's view that jumbo rolls were not marketable until processed led to the rejection of refund claims, despite appellant's reliance on relevant judgments. The rejection of refund claims was influenced by the Commissioner's stance on cited judgments and the Board's Circular. The issue of whether slitting jumbo rolls amounted to manufacture, unjust enrichment concerns, and the need for a Larger Bench reference due to conflicting judgments were key aspects addressed in the legal analysis. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98198