https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349399 Bullet proofing of vehicles by reinforcing the body shell, fitting ballistic materials and upgrading components did not amount to manufacture because the vehicles retained the same identity, character and use; accordingly, no excise duty was payable on that activity. An adjudication order also could not sustain a classification that travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the demand was founded on a tariff entry not proposed in the notice. As the demand failed on merits and on scope of notice, the penalty also could not survive, and the impugned demands were set aside with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349399 Bullet proofing of vehicles by reinforcing the body shell, fitting ballistic materials and upgrading components did not amount to manufacture because the vehicles retained the same identity, character and use; accordingly, no excise duty was payable on that activity. An adjudication order also could not sustain a classification that travelled beyond the show cause notice, since the demand was founded on a tariff entry not proposed in the notice. As the demand failed on merits and on scope of notice, the penalty also could not survive, and the impugned demands were set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349399