https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382867 Where a rebate dispute also depends on whether slitting and processing steel coils amounts to manufacture, the Tribunal can examine that antecedent manufacture issue even if the abstract rebate question lies outside its domain. The process was treated as excisable, duty had been paid, and clearances were made under ARE-I with jurisdictional certification and no procedural breach, supporting a bona fide belief that manufacture had occurred. On that basis, the contrary finding rejecting manufacture could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of rebate eligibility in light of the manufacture finding. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jul 2019 07:38:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382867 Where a rebate dispute also depends on whether slitting and processing steel coils amounts to manufacture, the Tribunal can examine that antecedent manufacture issue even if the abstract rebate question lies outside its domain. The process was treated as excisable, duty had been paid, and clearances were made under ARE-I with jurisdictional certification and no procedural breach, supporting a bona fide belief that manufacture had occurred. On that basis, the contrary finding rejecting manufacture could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of rebate eligibility in light of the manufacture finding. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382867