https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271545 Processes such as cutting, welding, drilling, grinding and galvanizing on steel items did not justify a duty demand where the authority failed to examine each item and process individually or show that the work resulted in a distinct, identifiable and marketable product. The finding of manufacture was therefore unsustainable. Duty also could not be fastened on the appellant for galvanizing done by a job worker, because any liability would attach to the person actually undertaking the manufacture activity, not merely to the party said to have used the job-work route. The duty demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jan 2026 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271545 Processes such as cutting, welding, drilling, grinding and galvanizing on steel items did not justify a duty demand where the authority failed to examine each item and process individually or show that the work resulted in a distinct, identifiable and marketable product. The finding of manufacture was therefore unsustainable. Duty also could not be fastened on the appellant for galvanizing done by a job worker, because any liability would attach to the person actually undertaking the manufacture activity, not merely to the party said to have used the job-work route. The duty demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271545