https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90631 Goods classifiable under heading 8707 were treated as covered by Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and the alleged procedural lapse in sending semi-finished bodies for outside operations was held immaterial. The unit held a licence, so the alleged contravention of Rule 174 could not be sustained. The outside work was within the scope of the trade notice and the contemplated permission for minor ancillary operations, supporting a bona fide belief and negating any inference of duty evasion. The procedural objection was therefore rejected and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:39:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90631 Goods classifiable under heading 8707 were treated as covered by Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and the alleged procedural lapse in sending semi-finished bodies for outside operations was held immaterial. The unit held a licence, so the alleged contravention of Rule 174 could not be sustained. The outside work was within the scope of the trade notice and the contemplated permission for minor ancillary operations, supporting a bona fide belief and negating any inference of duty evasion. The procedural objection was therefore rejected and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90631