https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96389 Classification adopted in the impugned order could not be sustained because the heading finally relied upon did not match the heading proposed in the show cause notice for the relevant period, so the classification finding was set aside. The question whether the appellant was the manufacturer, where goods were processed through job workers and later checked and repacked by the appellant, depended on factual findings and applicable job-work principles; the issue was remanded for fresh determination. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be imposed retrospectively for a period before its enactment, so the penalty challenge for the prior period failed. en-us Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:39:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96389 Classification adopted in the impugned order could not be sustained because the heading finally relied upon did not match the heading proposed in the show cause notice for the relevant period, so the classification finding was set aside. The question whether the appellant was the manufacturer, where goods were processed through job workers and later checked and repacked by the appellant, depended on factual findings and applicable job-work principles; the issue was remanded for fresh determination. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be imposed retrospectively for a period before its enactment, so the penalty challenge for the prior period failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96389