https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2720 The case involved the classification of goods under Chapter Heading, specifically Box Strappings, and the manufacturing process involved. The CESTAT held that the processes undertaken by the assessee amounted to manufacturing, resulting in a distinct product. The scope of the Show Cause Notice was also analyzed, with the Commissioner (Appeals) determining that the demand was beyond the notice's scope and time-barred. The limitation period for demand was upheld in favor of the Respondents, citing relevant cases. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2720 The case involved the classification of goods under Chapter Heading, specifically Box Strappings, and the manufacturing process involved. The CESTAT held that the processes undertaken by the assessee amounted to manufacturing, resulting in a distinct product. The scope of the Show Cause Notice was also analyzed, with the Commissioner (Appeals) determining that the demand was beyond the notice's scope and time-barred. The limitation period for demand was upheld in favor of the Respondents, citing relevant cases. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2720