https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236698 Supplying separate bought-out components of a computerized wheel aligner under one invoice and assembling them temporarily at the customer's site did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because no new and distinct commodity emerged and the parts remained individually identifiable. The demand also failed on limitation, as the clearances were reflected in commercial records and sales tax returns, with no material showing suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable. On that basis, the connected penalties and interest could not survive and were set aside. en-us Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236698 Supplying separate bought-out components of a computerized wheel aligner under one invoice and assembling them temporarily at the customer's site did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because no new and distinct commodity emerged and the parts remained individually identifiable. The demand also failed on limitation, as the clearances were reflected in commercial records and sales tax returns, with no material showing suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable. On that basis, the connected penalties and interest could not survive and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236698