https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85482 Permission under Rule 96E had been obtained before removal of cotton yarn to non-power operated units, and the procedural scheme required verification and bonds from both consignor and consignee under Rules 153B, 156A and 156B. Because the recipient units were in fact non-power operated, the failure to verify that status at the permission stage could not be attributed solely to the appellants. On that footing, the extended demand could not be sustained in full, and the portion of duty beyond the normal limitation period was time-barred. The demand was therefore upheld only for the restricted period. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:54:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85482 Permission under Rule 96E had been obtained before removal of cotton yarn to non-power operated units, and the procedural scheme required verification and bonds from both consignor and consignee under Rules 153B, 156A and 156B. Because the recipient units were in fact non-power operated, the failure to verify that status at the permission stage could not be attributed solely to the appellants. On that footing, the extended demand could not be sustained in full, and the portion of duty beyond the normal limitation period was time-barred. The demand was therefore upheld only for the restricted period. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85482