https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94745 In a dispute over exemption for cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power, the Tribunal found that a power-operated high-speed stirrer was not used in the relevant waterproofing or water-repelling process, as the manufacturing chain was otherwise mainly manual. The exemption notifications therefore continued to apply, and the duty demand failed on merits. On limitation, the Tribunal held that the absence of proof of the disputed power-assisted use meant suppression and wilful misstatement were not established; the assessee's bona fide belief also negatived extended-period invocation. The demand was accordingly held time-barred, and the confirmation of duty, penalty and confiscation could not stand. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:11:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94745 In a dispute over exemption for cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power, the Tribunal found that a power-operated high-speed stirrer was not used in the relevant waterproofing or water-repelling process, as the manufacturing chain was otherwise mainly manual. The exemption notifications therefore continued to apply, and the duty demand failed on merits. On limitation, the Tribunal held that the absence of proof of the disputed power-assisted use meant suppression and wilful misstatement were not established; the assessee's bona fide belief also negatived extended-period invocation. The demand was accordingly held time-barred, and the confirmation of duty, penalty and confiscation could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94745