https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103683 Cold drawing of duty paid wire rods was held not to amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the process did not bring into existence a commercially distinct new article. Applying the cited precedent, CEGAT rejected the Revenue's contention that the drawn wire became an excisable commodity. The resultant goods were therefore not liable to Central Excise duty, and the demand for duty, interest and penalties was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:50:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103683 Cold drawing of duty paid wire rods was held not to amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the process did not bring into existence a commercially distinct new article. Applying the cited precedent, CEGAT rejected the Revenue's contention that the drawn wire became an excisable commodity. The resultant goods were therefore not liable to Central Excise duty, and the demand for duty, interest and penalties was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103683