https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113119 Newsprint rejects exceeding 5% of production were not covered by Notification No. 261/88 or Notification No. 60/88 because the exemption applied to newsprint and not to rejects, and classification under the same tariff sub-heading did not expand the scope of the notification. An asserted approval by the Registrar of Newspapers for sale of the excess quantity was not proved. On limitation, the demand for 1989-90 could not be carried beyond the normal six-month period under the extended proviso to Section 11A because the notice contained no allegation of suppression, and the liability could be worked out only after the financial year closed. The demand was therefore restricted to the admissible period. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2012 18:32:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113119 Newsprint rejects exceeding 5% of production were not covered by Notification No. 261/88 or Notification No. 60/88 because the exemption applied to newsprint and not to rejects, and classification under the same tariff sub-heading did not expand the scope of the notification. An asserted approval by the Registrar of Newspapers for sale of the excess quantity was not proved. On limitation, the demand for 1989-90 could not be carried beyond the normal six-month period under the extended proviso to Section 11A because the notice contained no allegation of suppression, and the liability could be worked out only after the financial year closed. The demand was therefore restricted to the admissible period. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113119