https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118785 A detention order requiring deposit of 8% of value under Rule 57CC could not stand where the Tribunal had already found that the process did not amount to manufacture and had classified the goods under Chapter Heading 2108.99. In that context, treating the goods as final products attracting a nil duty rate for insisting on the deposit was inconsistent with the earlier final finding. The demand was therefore not a correct reading of the prior decision, and the miscellaneous application succeeded in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:44:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118785 A detention order requiring deposit of 8% of value under Rule 57CC could not stand where the Tribunal had already found that the process did not amount to manufacture and had classified the goods under Chapter Heading 2108.99. In that context, treating the goods as final products attracting a nil duty rate for insisting on the deposit was inconsistent with the earlier final finding. The demand was therefore not a correct reading of the prior decision, and the miscellaneous application succeeded in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118785