https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72424 A review show cause notice issued by the Central Government under the third proviso to Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was treated as subject to the limitation period applicable to short-levy recovery under Section 11A, so a notice issued beyond six months from communication of the original order was time barred. The note also states that stitching carried out at C-1/19, Vatva was done in a separate premises not constituting a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, so the resulting goods qualified for exemption under Notification No. 85/79 and their clearances could not be clubbed with the main factory clearances for the value ceiling under Notification No. 89/79. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 13:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72424 A review show cause notice issued by the Central Government under the third proviso to Section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was treated as subject to the limitation period applicable to short-levy recovery under Section 11A, so a notice issued beyond six months from communication of the original order was time barred. The note also states that stitching carried out at C-1/19, Vatva was done in a separate premises not constituting a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, so the resulting goods qualified for exemption under Notification No. 85/79 and their clearances could not be clubbed with the main factory clearances for the value ceiling under Notification No. 89/79. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72424