https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80293 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty was time-barred as there was no evidence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellants. Additionally, the Department failed to prove the classification of the product as phenolic resin or its marketability. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the Collector's order was set aside, and the Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:21:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80293 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty was time-barred as there was no evidence of suppression or misrepresentation by the appellants. Additionally, the Department failed to prove the classification of the product as phenolic resin or its marketability. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the Collector's order was set aside, and the Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80293