https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165717 The court held that rubberlining of tanks/vessels received from manufacturers constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, resulting in a new taxable product. However, for tanks/vessels received from users or old tanks where the original duty was paid, rubberlining did not change the taxable description and thus did not amount to manufacturing. The appeal was disposed of, clarifying the duty implications based on the manufacturing status of rubberlining in various scenarios. en-us Sat, 29 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:33:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165717 The court held that rubberlining of tanks/vessels received from manufacturers constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, resulting in a new taxable product. However, for tanks/vessels received from users or old tanks where the original duty was paid, rubberlining did not change the taxable description and thus did not amount to manufacturing. The appeal was disposed of, clarifying the duty implications based on the manufacturing status of rubberlining in various scenarios. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 29 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165717