https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80761 Excise demand was time-barred for the relevant part of the period because the show-cause notice did not support application of the extended limitation period. Exemption for complete wagons was unavailable where invoice value did not reflect the article's full intrinsic commercial value, including customer-supplied components. Job-work exemption was also unavailable because manufacturing wagon bodies and fabricating wagons with wheel sets and other materials exceeded mere job work. An appellate authority could not replace Rule 10 with Rule 10A to extend limitation or sustain recovery on a different basis. Proceedings validly initiated under a subsisting recovery rule could continue after its repeal or substitution despite no express saving clause. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:04:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80761 Excise demand was time-barred for the relevant part of the period because the show-cause notice did not support application of the extended limitation period. Exemption for complete wagons was unavailable where invoice value did not reflect the article's full intrinsic commercial value, including customer-supplied components. Job-work exemption was also unavailable because manufacturing wagon bodies and fabricating wagons with wheel sets and other materials exceeded mere job work. An appellate authority could not replace Rule 10 with Rule 10A to extend limitation or sustain recovery on a different basis. Proceedings validly initiated under a subsisting recovery rule could continue after its repeal or substitution despite no express saving clause. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80761