https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46636 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a civil contractor, stating that their activities did not amount to the manufacture of excisable goods. The items in question were not marketable and were embedded into the soil, thus not qualifying as excisable goods under the Central Excise Act. The court quashed the order, relieving the petitioner from paying excise duty and allowing them to withdraw the deposit and release bank guarantees. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46636 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a civil contractor, stating that their activities did not amount to the manufacture of excisable goods. The items in question were not marketable and were embedded into the soil, thus not qualifying as excisable goods under the Central Excise Act. The court quashed the order, relieving the petitioner from paying excise duty and allowing them to withdraw the deposit and release bank guarantees. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46636