https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50187 Squeezing water out of cotton fabrics by hydro-extraction or drying with power was treated as a mere removal of moisture before drying, not as manufacture. The Tribunal noted that Larger Bench rulings had already settled that such hydro-extraction, even when done with a motor-operated padding mangle or similar powered equipment, does not amount to manufacture and is not merely ancillary to manufacture for the purpose of denying exemption. Applying that binding view, the notification benefit could not be refused on the ground that the process amounted to manufacture, and the demand failed. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:36:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50187 Squeezing water out of cotton fabrics by hydro-extraction or drying with power was treated as a mere removal of moisture before drying, not as manufacture. The Tribunal noted that Larger Bench rulings had already settled that such hydro-extraction, even when done with a motor-operated padding mangle or similar powered equipment, does not amount to manufacture and is not merely ancillary to manufacture for the purpose of denying exemption. Applying that binding view, the notification benefit could not be refused on the ground that the process amounted to manufacture, and the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50187