https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166134 Goods that functioned as a barrier against access to the contents of drums or containers, were affixed over the closure, had a tear-and-separate arrangement, and were destroyed on removal were treated as pilfer-proof caps under Item 42 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The absence of threads or strict conformity with Indian Standards did not change their essential character, and the broad meaning of the tariff entry applied. The plea of estoppel failed because the appellants did not prove discriminatory treatment of similar goods, and the department had already put them on notice to obtain a licence and comply with excise formalities. The demand was also not barred by limitation for clearances made without payment of duty or compliance with formalities. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:00:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166134 Goods that functioned as a barrier against access to the contents of drums or containers, were affixed over the closure, had a tear-and-separate arrangement, and were destroyed on removal were treated as pilfer-proof caps under Item 42 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The absence of threads or strict conformity with Indian Standards did not change their essential character, and the broad meaning of the tariff entry applied. The plea of estoppel failed because the appellants did not prove discriminatory treatment of similar goods, and the department had already put them on notice to obtain a licence and comply with excise formalities. The demand was also not barred by limitation for clearances made without payment of duty or compliance with formalities. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166134