https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345171 Processed fabrics cleared by the appellant were treated as manmade fabrics on the basis of sample test reports and supporting records, so duty was payable and exemption under Notification No. 253/1982-CE was not available. The processor was also treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes, and the plea that only the merchant manufacturers were liable was rejected. At the same time, test results drawn from selected consignments were applied only to those sampled clearances; the demand was not extended to untested consignments, and the balance demand was dropped for lack of sample evidence. en-us Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345171 Processed fabrics cleared by the appellant were treated as manmade fabrics on the basis of sample test reports and supporting records, so duty was payable and exemption under Notification No. 253/1982-CE was not available. The processor was also treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes, and the plea that only the merchant manufacturers were liable was rejected. At the same time, test results drawn from selected consignments were applied only to those sampled clearances; the demand was not extended to untested consignments, and the balance demand was dropped for lack of sample evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345171