https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83717 Exemption under Notification No. 79/82-C.E. was considered on its own terms for man-made fabrics processed without power or steam, and the fact that a later calendering operation was done in another factory with power did not, by itself, defeat the concession. The commentary also notes that calendering was treated as a finishing process and that a separate notification independently covered calendering with plain rollers. On limitation, where the show cause notice extended beyond the normal period and the record showed no wilful suppression or misstatement, a duty demand could not be sustained as time-barred. The result was that the exemption claim and the limitation objection both favoured the assessee. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:04:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83717 Exemption under Notification No. 79/82-C.E. was considered on its own terms for man-made fabrics processed without power or steam, and the fact that a later calendering operation was done in another factory with power did not, by itself, defeat the concession. The commentary also notes that calendering was treated as a finishing process and that a separate notification independently covered calendering with plain rollers. On limitation, where the show cause notice extended beyond the normal period and the record showed no wilful suppression or misstatement, a duty demand could not be sustained as time-barred. The result was that the exemption claim and the limitation objection both favoured the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83717