https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84087 Misdeclaration of cotton yarn count defeated the plea of time-bar, because the tested count of 106.8 differed from the declared count of 100 and was confirmed on re-test. However, the demand period could not be fixed finally on that basis alone, as a later sample drawn on 8-4-1983 was said to conform to the declared count and that factual claim had not been examined. The matter was remanded for verification of the later sample and for fresh determination of the period and quantum of duty demand, including whether liability could run only up to 8-4-1983. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:51:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84087 Misdeclaration of cotton yarn count defeated the plea of time-bar, because the tested count of 106.8 differed from the declared count of 100 and was confirmed on re-test. However, the demand period could not be fixed finally on that basis alone, as a later sample drawn on 8-4-1983 was said to conform to the declared count and that factual claim had not been examined. The matter was remanded for verification of the later sample and for fresh determination of the period and quantum of duty demand, including whether liability could run only up to 8-4-1983. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84087