https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42000 Mere doubling of duty-paid spun yarn, without any transformation into an article with a distinct name, character or use, was treated as a preparatory process for weaving and not as manufacture for excise purposes. The two yarn components remained identifiable and separable, so no new excisable product arose under Tariff Item No. 18-III(ii). As the basic premise for classification and duty failed, the show cause notices issued on that basis could not be sustained and were quashed. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42000 Mere doubling of duty-paid spun yarn, without any transformation into an article with a distinct name, character or use, was treated as a preparatory process for weaving and not as manufacture for excise purposes. The two yarn components remained identifiable and separable, so no new excisable product arose under Tariff Item No. 18-III(ii). As the basic premise for classification and duty failed, the show cause notices issued on that basis could not be sustained and were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42000