https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258474 The Supreme Court ruled that the process undertaken by the assessee, involving mixing raw rice, dehydrated vegetables, and spices, did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the addition of ingredients did not change the essential character of the original product, maintaining its identity as rice. Consequently, the product was correctly classified under Heading 11.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting nil duty. The appeal was allowed, overturning the order for excise duty by the Revenue. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258474 The Supreme Court ruled that the process undertaken by the assessee, involving mixing raw rice, dehydrated vegetables, and spices, did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the addition of ingredients did not change the essential character of the original product, maintaining its identity as rice. Consequently, the product was correctly classified under Heading 11.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting nil duty. The appeal was allowed, overturning the order for excise duty by the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258474