https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251632 The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities amounted to manufacture as per the definition in the Central Excise Act. It was determined that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked since the appellant had disclosed all relevant information. Additionally, the duty paid by the appellant was considered as a reversal of Cenvat credit, following a precedent set by the Bombay High Court. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the previous orders were overturned. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251632 The Tribunal held that the appellant's activities amounted to manufacture as per the definition in the Central Excise Act. It was determined that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked since the appellant had disclosed all relevant information. Additionally, the duty paid by the appellant was considered as a reversal of Cenvat credit, following a precedent set by the Bombay High Court. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the previous orders were overturned. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251632