https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74299 Dantmanjan Lal was treated as falling under Tariff Item 68, not as an ayurvedic medicine excluded from the exemption computation, so its value had to be included in the aggregate clearances test under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., as amended. On that footing, the preceding-year turnover crossed the prescribed exemption limit and the denial of exemption was sustained on merits. Separately, because the show cause notice did not allege suppression or wilful misstatement and the goods were disclosed in the classification list and catalogue, the duty demand could extend only to the statutory six-month period, with the balance time-barred. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:33:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74299 Dantmanjan Lal was treated as falling under Tariff Item 68, not as an ayurvedic medicine excluded from the exemption computation, so its value had to be included in the aggregate clearances test under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., as amended. On that footing, the preceding-year turnover crossed the prescribed exemption limit and the denial of exemption was sustained on merits. Separately, because the show cause notice did not allege suppression or wilful misstatement and the goods were disclosed in the classification list and catalogue, the duty demand could extend only to the statutory six-month period, with the balance time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74299