https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=557 Extensive replacement of damaged parts in restoring a transformer was held to remain repair, not manufacture, because no new excisable product came into existence; the restoration therefore did not attract central excise duty. The document also states that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, as the transaction was recorded in the books and communicated to excise authorities, while non-disclosure of insurance claim details was not a statutory requirement and did not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty did not survive and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=557 Extensive replacement of damaged parts in restoring a transformer was held to remain repair, not manufacture, because no new excisable product came into existence; the restoration therefore did not attract central excise duty. The document also states that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, as the transaction was recorded in the books and communicated to excise authorities, while non-disclosure of insurance claim details was not a statutory requirement and did not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty did not survive and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=557