https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119581 The extended limitation period could not be invoked because the department was already aware of the processing activity and no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was proved. Decatising was treated as a finishing operation that did not bring into existence a new commodity, so it did not amount to manufacture and no central excise duty was leviable; the later exemption notifications were treated as clarificatory and retrospective. Calendaring was also held not liable to duty, and from 01.03.2003 the revised scheme shifted the duty burden away from job workers, so no duty could be confirmed on them under Rule 12B and the press note. en-us Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:46:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119581 The extended limitation period could not be invoked because the department was already aware of the processing activity and no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was proved. Decatising was treated as a finishing operation that did not bring into existence a new commodity, so it did not amount to manufacture and no central excise duty was leviable; the later exemption notifications were treated as clarificatory and retrospective. Calendaring was also held not liable to duty, and from 01.03.2003 the revised scheme shifted the duty burden away from job workers, so no duty could be confirmed on them under Rule 12B and the press note. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119581