https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80890 Calendering of fabrics with plain rollers, along with the preparatory damping process, was treated as a process that did not bring into existence a commercially distinct product and therefore did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes. The duty demand also failed on limitation because the show cause notice did not allege suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, while the process had been disclosed in the approved classification list and was said to have been observed by departmental officers. On that basis, the extended limitation period was not available, and the demand was barred. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:24:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80890 Calendering of fabrics with plain rollers, along with the preparatory damping process, was treated as a process that did not bring into existence a commercially distinct product and therefore did not amount to manufacture for central excise purposes. The duty demand also failed on limitation because the show cause notice did not allege suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, while the process had been disclosed in the approved classification list and was said to have been observed by departmental officers. On that basis, the extended limitation period was not available, and the demand was barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80890