https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386388 Processing MS angles and structural materials by cutting, drilling and related work did not create a new and distinct product, so it did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes. The court followed the earlier view in the petitioner's own matters and noted that the appellate authority had also accepted the same reasoning and dropped recovery. As the demand was founded on an incorrect characterisation of the activity, the excise duty and penalty could not be sustained and were set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Feb 2020 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386388 Processing MS angles and structural materials by cutting, drilling and related work did not create a new and distinct product, so it did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes. The court followed the earlier view in the petitioner's own matters and noted that the appellate authority had also accepted the same reasoning and dropped recovery. As the demand was founded on an incorrect characterisation of the activity, the excise duty and penalty could not be sustained and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386388