https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72942 Mere chilling of water before manufacture of aerated waters did not defeat exemption under Notification No. 293/77, because the process did not alter the character of the water or amount to a disqualifying process of manufacture; the benefit remained available despite limited power being used for preparatory chilling. The duty demand was also upheld as it was raised within six months, making recovery under Rule 10 competent and removing any need to rely only on review under Section 35 for short levy. The appeal therefore succeeded on the exemption issue, while the limitation objection to the demand failed. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2011 10:50:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72942 Mere chilling of water before manufacture of aerated waters did not defeat exemption under Notification No. 293/77, because the process did not alter the character of the water or amount to a disqualifying process of manufacture; the benefit remained available despite limited power being used for preparatory chilling. The duty demand was also upheld as it was raised within six months, making recovery under Rule 10 competent and removing any need to rely only on review under Section 35 for short levy. The appeal therefore succeeded on the exemption issue, while the limitation objection to the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72942