https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165667 Duty demand was found substantially time-barred, as the material on record did not support the contrary limitation finding. The conclusion that the appellants had employed more than 49 workers was unsustainable because it rested on hypothetical reasoning rather than clear evidence, so Item 68 did not apply. The goods were also held to fall within the ordinary commercial meaning of "grain mill products", and a restrictive exclusion was rejected; the exemption contention therefore succeeded. The Collector's orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:13:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165667 Duty demand was found substantially time-barred, as the material on record did not support the contrary limitation finding. The conclusion that the appellants had employed more than 49 workers was unsustainable because it rested on hypothetical reasoning rather than clear evidence, so Item 68 did not apply. The goods were also held to fall within the ordinary commercial meaning of "grain mill products", and a restrictive exclusion was rejected; the exemption contention therefore succeeded. The Collector's orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165667