https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72614 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 71/78 depended on aggregate clearances, and the value of Dantmanjan Lal had to be counted because it was treated as falling under Tariff Item 68 rather than as an excluded ayurvedic medicine. On that basis, the assessee could not retain exemption once the prescribed clearance limit was exceeded. On limitation, the record did not justify extended period action because there was no sufficient material of suppression or misstatement of facts. The duty demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period preceding the show cause notice. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2011 17:36:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72614 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 71/78 depended on aggregate clearances, and the value of Dantmanjan Lal had to be counted because it was treated as falling under Tariff Item 68 rather than as an excluded ayurvedic medicine. On that basis, the assessee could not retain exemption once the prescribed clearance limit was exceeded. On limitation, the record did not justify extended period action because there was no sufficient material of suppression or misstatement of facts. The duty demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period preceding the show cause notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72614