https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93706 Footwear exemption under Notification No. 49/86-CE was denied because surrounding records, dispatch discrepancies and inter-unit movement showed that power-dependent processes were completed in a power-operated unit, so the goods were not manufactured without aid of power. The duty demand was upheld. Suppression of the true manufacturing arrangement was found because the declaration did not disclose the actual functioning of the two units, and this justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). Penalty under Rule 209A on the buyer was set aside because the record did not establish knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. en-us Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:58:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93706 Footwear exemption under Notification No. 49/86-CE was denied because surrounding records, dispatch discrepancies and inter-unit movement showed that power-dependent processes were completed in a power-operated unit, so the goods were not manufactured without aid of power. The duty demand was upheld. Suppression of the true manufacturing arrangement was found because the declaration did not disclose the actual functioning of the two units, and this justified invocation of the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1). Penalty under Rule 209A on the buyer was set aside because the record did not establish knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93706