https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45879 The dominant issue was whether "assembly" under an exemption notification required emergence of a new furnace, justifying denial of the notification benefit where serviceable dismantled parts and indigenous parts were used with imported parts. The SC held that "assembly" is distinct from "initial setting up" and cannot be construed as "manufacture" or as requiring creation of a new article; the notification must be construed reasonably, and reading "assembly" as necessitating a new product would render the term redundant. The notification also did not permit denial merely due to reuse of parts or use of indigenous parts with imported parts. The exemption benefit was allowed. en-us Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45879 The dominant issue was whether "assembly" under an exemption notification required emergence of a new furnace, justifying denial of the notification benefit where serviceable dismantled parts and indigenous parts were used with imported parts. The SC held that "assembly" is distinct from "initial setting up" and cannot be construed as "manufacture" or as requiring creation of a new article; the notification must be construed reasonably, and reading "assembly" as necessitating a new product would render the term redundant. The notification also did not permit denial merely due to reuse of parts or use of indigenous parts with imported parts. The exemption benefit was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45879