https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115483 Extended-period excise demand fails where the department cannot show suppression and the records indicate the procedure was known through numbered documents and inspection visits. The note also states that copper fins, water channels and header plates were not shown to be independently marketable goods, the entities were not proved to be related persons, and the arrangement was treated as job work or a marketing arrangement rather than a single manufacturing set-up. On those facts, exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was available and alleged non-observance of Rule 56B did not itself create duty liability absent clandestine removal. With the duty demand unsustainable on limitation and merits, penalty and confiscation-related consequences also fail. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 May 2012 10:20:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115483 Extended-period excise demand fails where the department cannot show suppression and the records indicate the procedure was known through numbered documents and inspection visits. The note also states that copper fins, water channels and header plates were not shown to be independently marketable goods, the entities were not proved to be related persons, and the arrangement was treated as job work or a marketing arrangement rather than a single manufacturing set-up. On those facts, exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was available and alleged non-observance of Rule 56B did not itself create duty liability absent clandestine removal. With the duty demand unsustainable on limitation and merits, penalty and confiscation-related consequences also fail. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115483