https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781727 CESTAT Chandigarh held that the appellant's activity of diluting purchased seaweed concentrate from 42% to a lower concentration by adding water and preservatives does not amount to "manufacture" under central excise law. Relying on its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, which had been affirmed by the SC, the Tribunal held that no new commercially distinct product emerged. Consequently, issues of classification under CETA 3105 1000 and applicability of Notification No. 02/2011 became irrelevant. The central excise demand was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781727 CESTAT Chandigarh held that the appellant's activity of diluting purchased seaweed concentrate from 42% to a lower concentration by adding water and preservatives does not amount to "manufacture" under central excise law. Relying on its earlier decision in the appellant's own case, which had been affirmed by the SC, the Tribunal held that no new commercially distinct product emerged. Consequently, issues of classification under CETA 3105 1000 and applicability of Notification No. 02/2011 became irrelevant. The central excise demand was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781727