https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80506 For central excise limitation, the extended period under Rule 9(2) was unavailable because the Department failed to prove suppression, wilful misstatement, or deliberate withholding of facts; on that basis, the demand before 28-2-1980 was time-barred and only the later period survived. On exemption, nylon sandwiched leather beltings were treated as products of the tanning industry because the manufacturing process involved substantial tanning activity and expert technical opinions supported that classification; the goods therefore qualified for exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 05 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:13:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80506 For central excise limitation, the extended period under Rule 9(2) was unavailable because the Department failed to prove suppression, wilful misstatement, or deliberate withholding of facts; on that basis, the demand before 28-2-1980 was time-barred and only the later period survived. On exemption, nylon sandwiched leather beltings were treated as products of the tanning industry because the manufacturing process involved substantial tanning activity and expert technical opinions supported that classification; the goods therefore qualified for exemption under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80506