https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89080 Crushing of limestone was treated as manufacture, making the product dutiable and excisable on merits. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because excisability had been the subject of conflicting judicial views and the assessee's belief that duty was not payable was bona fide, with no deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Penalty was likewise held unsustainable, since quasi-criminal liability could not be imposed without the necessary mens rea or deliberate default. Duty liability was upheld, but relief was granted on limitation and penalty. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:44:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89080 Crushing of limestone was treated as manufacture, making the product dutiable and excisable on merits. The Tribunal also held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because excisability had been the subject of conflicting judicial views and the assessee's belief that duty was not payable was bona fide, with no deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Penalty was likewise held unsustainable, since quasi-criminal liability could not be imposed without the necessary mens rea or deliberate default. Duty liability was upheld, but relief was granted on limitation and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89080