https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43497 Mercerisation of yarn was held not to constitute manufacture under excise law because the statutory definition and tariff notes expressly treated mercerising as manufacture for fabrics but omitted yarn. That omission was treated as a deliberate legislative distinction, so the process could not be brought within section 2(f) by implication. On that basis, the licence granted for mercerising yarn had been obtained on an incorrect assumption and its cancellation was upheld. The writ petition failed. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:33:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43497 Mercerisation of yarn was held not to constitute manufacture under excise law because the statutory definition and tariff notes expressly treated mercerising as manufacture for fabrics but omitted yarn. That omission was treated as a deliberate legislative distinction, so the process could not be brought within section 2(f) by implication. On that basis, the licence granted for mercerising yarn had been obtained on an incorrect assumption and its cancellation was upheld. The writ petition failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43497