https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210852 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's judgment, which held that re-glasslining of machinery did not amount to manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Court found that issues related to determining excise duty rates or goods' excisability fell within the jurisdiction of higher courts, aligning with a precedent set by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the Court ruled the appeal as not maintainable, emphasizing the distinction between manufacturing processes and duty assessment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210852 The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's judgment, which held that re-glasslining of machinery did not amount to manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Court found that issues related to determining excise duty rates or goods' excisability fell within the jurisdiction of higher courts, aligning with a precedent set by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the Court ruled the appeal as not maintainable, emphasizing the distinction between manufacturing processes and duty assessment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210852