https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117799 Coating customer-supplied bare M.S. pipes with polyethylene, coal tar, internal epoxy, concrete or fusion bonded epoxy coating did not amount to manufacture because the pipes retained their identity and no new excisable commodity emerged. The applicable principle was that coating, fixing, rubberizing or painting of pipes, by itself, does not create a distinct marketable product when tariff treatment does not materially distinguish coated from uncoated pipes. The Board circular treating similar pipe coating activity as non-manufacture was also binding on revenue authorities, reinforcing the conclusion that no excise duty arose on the activity. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:13:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117799 Coating customer-supplied bare M.S. pipes with polyethylene, coal tar, internal epoxy, concrete or fusion bonded epoxy coating did not amount to manufacture because the pipes retained their identity and no new excisable commodity emerged. The applicable principle was that coating, fixing, rubberizing or painting of pipes, by itself, does not create a distinct marketable product when tariff treatment does not materially distinguish coated from uncoated pipes. The Board circular treating similar pipe coating activity as non-manufacture was also binding on revenue authorities, reinforcing the conclusion that no excise duty arose on the activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117799