https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335678 Goods described in invoices and communications as fly ash bricks, and found to contain more than 48% fly ash by weight, were treated as fly ash bricks in common trade parlance and made liable to central excise duty. Concessional duty under Notification No. 5/2009-CE was denied because the prescribed record-keeping and return-filing conditions were not complied with. The extended period of limitation was held invocable since the product was manufactured and marketed as fly ash bricks without returns being filed for that product, and the objection based on denial of cross-examination failed because no relied-upon chemical examiner's report was shown and the examiner stated the percentage content could not be ascertained from the bricks. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:18:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335678 Goods described in invoices and communications as fly ash bricks, and found to contain more than 48% fly ash by weight, were treated as fly ash bricks in common trade parlance and made liable to central excise duty. Concessional duty under Notification No. 5/2009-CE was denied because the prescribed record-keeping and return-filing conditions were not complied with. The extended period of limitation was held invocable since the product was manufactured and marketed as fly ash bricks without returns being filed for that product, and the objection based on denial of cross-examination failed because no relied-upon chemical examiner's report was shown and the examiner stated the percentage content could not be ascertained from the bricks. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335678