https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80078 Contemporaneous departmental visits, record scrutiny and correspondence showed the Department had knowledge of the manufacture and clearances, so suppression was not established and the extended limitation under section 11A could not be invoked; demand was confined to the normal six-month period. The character of Mahatal RT 75 and its exemption entitlement could not be conclusively determined on the existing record, so the matter was remanded for de novo testing and factual verification. The claim for deduction of drum and barrel value was also remanded for fresh consideration because the returnability and durability of the containers were not satisfactorily proved. Petroleum jelly was held not to require a drug licence for the claimed exemption. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:27:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80078 Contemporaneous departmental visits, record scrutiny and correspondence showed the Department had knowledge of the manufacture and clearances, so suppression was not established and the extended limitation under section 11A could not be invoked; demand was confined to the normal six-month period. The character of Mahatal RT 75 and its exemption entitlement could not be conclusively determined on the existing record, so the matter was remanded for de novo testing and factual verification. The claim for deduction of drum and barrel value was also remanded for fresh consideration because the returnability and durability of the containers were not satisfactorily proved. Petroleum jelly was held not to require a drug licence for the claimed exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80078