https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371 Joining and welding pipes of different diameters into stepped transmission poles did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The process merely assembled existing pipes without creating a new and distinct marketable article with a different name, character or use, so the original identity of the goods remained unchanged. The SC also reaffirmed that the burden to prove manufacture lies on the Revenue, and that a residuary tariff entry cannot be applied where manufacture is not established or the goods fall within a specific entry. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371 Joining and welding pipes of different diameters into stepped transmission poles did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The process merely assembled existing pipes without creating a new and distinct marketable article with a different name, character or use, so the original identity of the goods remained unchanged. The SC also reaffirmed that the burden to prove manufacture lies on the Revenue, and that a residuary tariff entry cannot be applied where manufacture is not established or the goods fall within a specific entry. The excise demand was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371