https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=636 The Tribunal held that the activities of decoiling, straightening, cutting, bending, and bundling of Bars and Rods by a company did not amount to manufacture for Central Excise Duty liability. Citing a Delhi High Court decision, it was established that unless a new distinct article emerges, such activities do not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal set aside the order against the company, allowing their appeal and providing consequential reliefs. Consequently, no penalty was justified for another company that had placed orders with the appellant company, whose appeals were also allowed. The judgment clarified the distinction between manufacturing activities for Central Excise Duty purposes based on legal precedents. en-us Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=636 The Tribunal held that the activities of decoiling, straightening, cutting, bending, and bundling of Bars and Rods by a company did not amount to manufacture for Central Excise Duty liability. Citing a Delhi High Court decision, it was established that unless a new distinct article emerges, such activities do not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal set aside the order against the company, allowing their appeal and providing consequential reliefs. Consequently, no penalty was justified for another company that had placed orders with the appellant company, whose appeals were also allowed. The judgment clarified the distinction between manufacturing activities for Central Excise Duty purposes based on legal precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=636