https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278187 Processing iron ore into concentrate did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes because the activity only improved Fe content and did not create a new and distinct commercially recognisable product. The absence of any special processing facility and the fact that the process was incidental, rather than one giving rise to a separately known product in trade, supported that conclusion. The Board circular and cited precedents reinforced the view that mere enrichment or concentration of ore, without emergence of a new product, is insufficient to attract excise duty. Accordingly, the duty demand and penalty could not survive. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278187 Processing iron ore into concentrate did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes because the activity only improved Fe content and did not create a new and distinct commercially recognisable product. The absence of any special processing facility and the fact that the process was incidental, rather than one giving rise to a separately known product in trade, supported that conclusion. The Board circular and cited precedents reinforced the view that mere enrichment or concentration of ore, without emergence of a new product, is insufficient to attract excise duty. Accordingly, the duty demand and penalty could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278187