https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209086 Supplying separately procured components of a computerized wheel aligner under one invoice and temporarily assembling them at the customer's site was held not to amount to manufacture under section 2(f) because the parts retained their separate identity and no new commercially distinct article came into existence. On that basis, excise liability failed on merits. The record also showed commercial invoicing and disclosure in sales tax returns, so there was no suppression or intent to evade duty and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. As the basic demand was unsustainable, interest and penalties also could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209086 Supplying separately procured components of a computerized wheel aligner under one invoice and temporarily assembling them at the customer's site was held not to amount to manufacture under section 2(f) because the parts retained their separate identity and no new commercially distinct article came into existence. On that basis, excise liability failed on merits. The record also showed commercial invoicing and disclosure in sales tax returns, so there was no suppression or intent to evade duty and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. As the basic demand was unsustainable, interest and penalties also could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209086