https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83338 Manually operated wheel barrows were held not to be agricultural implements because their basic character is general and multifarious, so they did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The duty-rate issue was decided by applying the rule governing clearance: where classification lists had been filed and approved, the applicable rate was the rate in force on the date of clearance under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the department could not extend the demand beyond the permissible six-month period. The exemption claim therefore failed, while the demand was confined by limitation. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:37:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83338 Manually operated wheel barrows were held not to be agricultural implements because their basic character is general and multifarious, so they did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. The duty-rate issue was decided by applying the rule governing clearance: where classification lists had been filed and approved, the applicable rate was the rate in force on the date of clearance under Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the department could not extend the demand beyond the permissible six-month period. The exemption claim therefore failed, while the demand was confined by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83338