https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166667 Revisional jurisdiction under the Central Excises and Salt Act could not be used to enlarge the scope of a notice confined to differential duty or to impose a higher levy under additional tariff items after the limitation period had expired. The revisional authority was therefore limited to the proceedings already initiated below and could not create a new excise demand beyond the original notice. On classification, the fabrics were to be assessed at the stage of final clearance for sale, and on the facts the final manufactured state governed the duty treatment. Item 22 was the appropriate classification, and the demand beyond the original notice was not sustained. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:32:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166667 Revisional jurisdiction under the Central Excises and Salt Act could not be used to enlarge the scope of a notice confined to differential duty or to impose a higher levy under additional tariff items after the limitation period had expired. The revisional authority was therefore limited to the proceedings already initiated below and could not create a new excise demand beyond the original notice. On classification, the fabrics were to be assessed at the stage of final clearance for sale, and on the facts the final manufactured state governed the duty treatment. Item 22 was the appropriate classification, and the demand beyond the original notice was not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166667