https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73585 A prior appellate order did not bar the Department from re-examining the exemption claim where the manufacturing process had materially changed, and the demand was confined to the permissible limitation period. On the exemption issue, soap manufacture was treated as an integrated process in which steam heating and power-driven pumping formed part of manufacture itself; those operations were not mere post-manufacturing activity. As a result, exemption under Notification No. 28/64-C.E. was unavailable because the process used steam or power in the production of the final excisable product, and duty remained payable within the restricted period. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:02:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73585 A prior appellate order did not bar the Department from re-examining the exemption claim where the manufacturing process had materially changed, and the demand was confined to the permissible limitation period. On the exemption issue, soap manufacture was treated as an integrated process in which steam heating and power-driven pumping formed part of manufacture itself; those operations were not mere post-manufacturing activity. As a result, exemption under Notification No. 28/64-C.E. was unavailable because the process used steam or power in the production of the final excisable product, and duty remained payable within the restricted period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73585