https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4733 Excise demands on textile processing were found unsustainable where the department knew of the activity and suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Decatising was treated as the same steam-treatment process as blowing, did not bring into existence a new product, and therefore did not amount to manufacture; the exemption applicable to blowing was held to cover it as a clarificatory continuation of the earlier position. Calendering was also treated as non-excisable on the facts, and after the 2003 textile policy changes the duty burden for the relevant job-work process could not be fastened on job workers. Penalties were set aside and the substantive demands failed. en-us Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4733 Excise demands on textile processing were found unsustainable where the department knew of the activity and suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Decatising was treated as the same steam-treatment process as blowing, did not bring into existence a new product, and therefore did not amount to manufacture; the exemption applicable to blowing was held to cover it as a clarificatory continuation of the earlier position. Calendering was also treated as non-excisable on the facts, and after the 2003 textile policy changes the duty burden for the relevant job-work process could not be fastened on job workers. Penalties were set aside and the substantive demands failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4733