https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42415 SC held that hydrogenated rice bran oil does not amount to a new commercially distinct product and therefore the process of hydrogenation does not constitute "manufacture" for excise purposes. Affirming CEGAT, SC ruled that hardened technical oil remains essentially the same as the base oil, being only a scientifically modified homologue without change in its essential character. For classification, the Court held that the specific tariff entry for "vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts" (Item 12) prevails over the residuary entry for "goods not elsewhere specified" (Item 68). The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42415 SC held that hydrogenated rice bran oil does not amount to a new commercially distinct product and therefore the process of hydrogenation does not constitute "manufacture" for excise purposes. Affirming CEGAT, SC ruled that hardened technical oil remains essentially the same as the base oil, being only a scientifically modified homologue without change in its essential character. For classification, the Court held that the specific tariff entry for "vegetable non-essential oils, all sorts" (Item 12) prevails over the residuary entry for "goods not elsewhere specified" (Item 68). The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42415