https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172749 The High Court of Uttarakhand found that the Revenue was aware of the nature of work and inputs used in repair activities, leading to the conclusion that the duty demand on repair works should have been raised within one year of removal, not within the extended period allowed by the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As there were no substantial legal questions arising from the appeal and the matter was decided on undisputed facts, the Court disposed of the appeal without interference. This case underscores the significance of Revenue's awareness in determining duty liability for repair works under the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172749 The High Court of Uttarakhand found that the Revenue was aware of the nature of work and inputs used in repair activities, leading to the conclusion that the duty demand on repair works should have been raised within one year of removal, not within the extended period allowed by the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As there were no substantial legal questions arising from the appeal and the matter was decided on undisputed facts, the Court disposed of the appeal without interference. This case underscores the significance of Revenue's awareness in determining duty liability for repair works under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172749