https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108047 Denial of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. based on alleged power-aided bleaching and dyeing failed because the Department's evidence was insufficient: retracted statements required independent corroboration, and no contemporaneous records, employee testimony, or reliable proof established earlier installation or use of power-operated jiggers. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Duty could also not be demanded for drawing, scouring and padding because those processes were not covered by the show cause notice, and the Revenue could not expand the demand beyond its terms. The ratio is that a retracted confession alone cannot sustain duty and liability cannot be imposed on matters outside the notice. en-us Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:00:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108047 Denial of exemption under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. based on alleged power-aided bleaching and dyeing failed because the Department's evidence was insufficient: retracted statements required independent corroboration, and no contemporaneous records, employee testimony, or reliable proof established earlier installation or use of power-operated jiggers. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable. Duty could also not be demanded for drawing, scouring and padding because those processes were not covered by the show cause notice, and the Revenue could not expand the demand beyond its terms. The ratio is that a retracted confession alone cannot sustain duty and liability cannot be imposed on matters outside the notice. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108047