https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154484 Slitting larger paper reels into smaller reels did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, because manufacture requires the emergence of a commercially different commodity. The Court held that Rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, did not by itself convert the process into manufacture. On the evidence, both reel sizes remained paper, were capable of the same normal use, and there was no material showing that the market treated them as different commodities. The revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving commercial distinctiveness, so the smaller reels were not treated as a separate commodity. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154484 Slitting larger paper reels into smaller reels did not amount to manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, because manufacture requires the emergence of a commercially different commodity. The Court held that Rule 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, did not by itself convert the process into manufacture. On the evidence, both reel sizes remained paper, were capable of the same normal use, and there was no material showing that the market treated them as different commodities. The revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving commercial distinctiveness, so the smaller reels were not treated as a separate commodity. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154484