{"id":9760,"date":"2025-10-07T11:04:12","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T11:04:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=9760"},"modified":"2025-10-07T11:50:25","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T11:50:25","slug":"understanding-section-37-of-central-excise-act-through-supreme-courts-landmark-judgment-on-manufacture-definition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/understanding-section-37-of-central-excise-act-through-supreme-courts-landmark-judgment-on-manufacture-definition\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding Section 37 of Central Excise Act Through Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment on ‘Manufacture’ Definition"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span>Introduction<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Central Excise Act, 1944 stands as one of India’s fundamental taxation legislations, governing the levy and collection of excise duties on manufactured goods. At its core, Section 2(f)(i) of the Act defines ‘manufacture’ – a definition that has been subject to numerous judicial interpretations over the years. The recent Supreme Court judgment in M\/s Quippo Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad \u2013 II provides crucial clarity on what constitutes ‘manufacture’ under the Act, particularly in cases involving transformation of existing products.<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n