https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236737 The Tribunal, led by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand was time-barred and the use of steam for drying did not disqualify them from the exemption. The judgment emphasized the distinction between manufacturing processes and ancillary activities like drying, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236737 The Tribunal, led by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the demand was time-barred and the use of steam for drying did not disqualify them from the exemption. The judgment emphasized the distinction between manufacturing processes and ancillary activities like drying, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236737