https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356911 Excise duty demand for the period before February 1986 could not be sustained on the existing record because there was no categorical finding of manufacture of the goods and the claimed tariff exemption was not examined. The denial of small scale industry exemption for March 1986 to July 1986 was also unsustained merely because the registration certificate described another product, since eligibility depends on the unit's investment and turnover, not the product description alone. The related pleas on cum-duty price and input credit also required consideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the demand and exemption claims. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356911 Excise duty demand for the period before February 1986 could not be sustained on the existing record because there was no categorical finding of manufacture of the goods and the claimed tariff exemption was not examined. The denial of small scale industry exemption for March 1986 to July 1986 was also unsustained merely because the registration certificate described another product, since eligibility depends on the unit's investment and turnover, not the product description alone. The related pleas on cum-duty price and input credit also required consideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the demand and exemption claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356911