https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117465 The appeal focused on whether the process of calendering, conducted with power, constitutes a process of manufacture. The Tribunal referenced past judgments to conclude that calendering alone does not amount to a manufacturing process. The Commissioner's inclusion of decatizing in the proceedings, not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, was deemed beyond the original scope. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the grounds that calendering, as stated in the Notice, does not qualify as a manufacturing process. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:49:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117465 The appeal focused on whether the process of calendering, conducted with power, constitutes a process of manufacture. The Tribunal referenced past judgments to conclude that calendering alone does not amount to a manufacturing process. The Commissioner's inclusion of decatizing in the proceedings, not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, was deemed beyond the original scope. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the grounds that calendering, as stated in the Notice, does not qualify as a manufacturing process. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117465