https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94912 The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court determined that the assessees were not liable to pay duty on intermingled yarn. Additionally, the confiscation of plant and machinery and imposition of penalties were overturned. The court emphasized the distinction between air-mingling and air-texturising processes, citing the 1999 amendment to Tariff Note 3. The retrospective application of the amendment was considered clarificatory, impacting the limitation period for duty imposition. The department's belief that air-texturing was not a manufacturing process pre-amendment was crucial, leading to the rejection of duty demands, penalties, and confiscation. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:28:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94912 The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The court determined that the assessees were not liable to pay duty on intermingled yarn. Additionally, the confiscation of plant and machinery and imposition of penalties were overturned. The court emphasized the distinction between air-mingling and air-texturising processes, citing the 1999 amendment to Tariff Note 3. The retrospective application of the amendment was considered clarificatory, impacting the limitation period for duty imposition. The department's belief that air-texturing was not a manufacturing process pre-amendment was crucial, leading to the rejection of duty demands, penalties, and confiscation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94912