https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109104 Doubling, multifolding or twisting of yarn was treated as a processing step that does not create a new product with distinct commercial identity, so it was not manufacture and no excise duty arose on that basis. The text also notes that the yarn was not shown to be marketed or marketable, and that a mere reference to a product in a notification does not by itself make it excisable goods. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the department knew of the activity and there was no suppression or concealment of material facts, so the demand was time-barred. en-us Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109104 Doubling, multifolding or twisting of yarn was treated as a processing step that does not create a new product with distinct commercial identity, so it was not manufacture and no excise duty arose on that basis. The text also notes that the yarn was not shown to be marketed or marketable, and that a mere reference to a product in a notification does not by itself make it excisable goods. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the department knew of the activity and there was no suppression or concealment of material facts, so the demand was time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109104