https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334618 Conversion of paddy into rice by de-husking or milling was treated as a simple process that did not create a new and distinct commodity, so it was not manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Because manufacture failed, rice and bran rice were also held not to be excisable goods; the tariff entry for rice was treated as having no prescribed duty, which supported the view that no excise levy could be sustained. Demand, interest and penalties therefore could not survive on merits, and consequential relief followed. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334618 Conversion of paddy into rice by de-husking or milling was treated as a simple process that did not create a new and distinct commodity, so it was not manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Because manufacture failed, rice and bran rice were also held not to be excisable goods; the tariff entry for rice was treated as having no prescribed duty, which supported the view that no excise levy could be sustained. Demand, interest and penalties therefore could not survive on merits, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334618