https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337216 The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the department was already aware of the respondents' activity, records had been taken during investigation, and there was no wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The respondents' bona fide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture further negatived the statutory conditions for extended limitation. The duty demand also failed because the respondents did not themselves carry out the dyeing process; it was done by job workers, and they bought grey yarn in cone form and sold it in the same form after the intermediate process. The impugned order was sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337216 The extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the department was already aware of the respondents' activity, records had been taken during investigation, and there was no wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The respondents' bona fide belief that the activity did not amount to manufacture further negatived the statutory conditions for extended limitation. The duty demand also failed because the respondents did not themselves carry out the dyeing process; it was done by job workers, and they bought grey yarn in cone form and sold it in the same form after the intermediate process. The impugned order was sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337216