https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49936 The Tribunal held that the activity of rubber lining in tanks/vessels does not amount to a process of manufacture for excisability purposes. Previous judgments and the Apex Court's decision supported this view, emphasizing that rubber lining did not create new goods but extended the life of the tanks. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the precedent that rubber lining is not classified as a manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act. en-us Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:43:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49936 The Tribunal held that the activity of rubber lining in tanks/vessels does not amount to a process of manufacture for excisability purposes. Previous judgments and the Apex Court's decision supported this view, emphasizing that rubber lining did not create new goods but extended the life of the tanks. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the precedent that rubber lining is not classified as a manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49936