https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42101 The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's decision to set aside the Assistant Collector's order, directing a refund of the excise duty collected. The court held that the process carried out by the respondent did not result in the creation of a new commodity, and therefore, the products were not liable for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court clarified that the liability to pay duty arises from the manufacture of paper, which was not undertaken by the respondent in this case. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:09:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42101 The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's decision to set aside the Assistant Collector's order, directing a refund of the excise duty collected. The court held that the process carried out by the respondent did not result in the creation of a new commodity, and therefore, the products were not liable for excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court clarified that the liability to pay duty arises from the manufacture of paper, which was not undertaken by the respondent in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42101