https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336671 Doubling of cotton yarn was treated as manufacture because Chapter Note (1) to Chapter 52 expressly deemed that process to be manufacture during the relevant period, making central excise duty and consequential interest payable. The appellant's reliance on earlier authorities failed because they predated the insertion of the deeming provision. The plea of bona fide belief was rejected for penalty purposes under Section 11AC, as the statutory chapter note was already in force and should have been considered in the job-work activity. The duty demand, interest and penalty were therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336671 Doubling of cotton yarn was treated as manufacture because Chapter Note (1) to Chapter 52 expressly deemed that process to be manufacture during the relevant period, making central excise duty and consequential interest payable. The appellant's reliance on earlier authorities failed because they predated the insertion of the deeming provision. The plea of bona fide belief was rejected for penalty purposes under Section 11AC, as the statutory chapter note was already in force and should have been considered in the job-work activity. The duty demand, interest and penalty were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336671