https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236156 In construing the Textile Committee (Cess) Act, 1963, the expression "manufacture" was treated in its ordinary and common parlance sense because the levy is distinct from excise and the excise meaning could not be imported bodily into the Act. On that approach, bleaching, dyeing and similar job-work processing of textiles already manufactured by handloom or powerloom units did not alter the essential character of the goods or take them outside the proviso. The job worker was regarded as an extended hand of the exempt manufacturers, so the textile remained covered by the exemption and cess was not payable. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236156 In construing the Textile Committee (Cess) Act, 1963, the expression "manufacture" was treated in its ordinary and common parlance sense because the levy is distinct from excise and the excise meaning could not be imported bodily into the Act. On that approach, bleaching, dyeing and similar job-work processing of textiles already manufactured by handloom or powerloom units did not alter the essential character of the goods or take them outside the proviso. The job worker was regarded as an extended hand of the exempt manufacturers, so the textile remained covered by the exemption and cess was not payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236156