https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167226 Grinding and washing ore into concentrates was treated as manufacture because the process produced a new commercially distinct product with a higher metal content, separate marketability, and a different name, character and use from the original ore. The concentrate remained excisable even though it was only an intermediate product, and the plea of double taxation was rejected because the concentrate and final metal were treated as different goods at different stages. The majority upheld excise liability, while the dissent considered the concentrate to be unchanged ore and not a new excisable commodity. en-us Mon, 29 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:01:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167226 Grinding and washing ore into concentrates was treated as manufacture because the process produced a new commercially distinct product with a higher metal content, separate marketability, and a different name, character and use from the original ore. The concentrate remained excisable even though it was only an intermediate product, and the plea of double taxation was rejected because the concentrate and final metal were treated as different goods at different stages. The majority upheld excise liability, while the dissent considered the concentrate to be unchanged ore and not a new excisable commodity. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167226