https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370387 Galvanization was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 73 from 1 April 2003, and the note was held to be in the public domain, so the assessee could not claim bona fide ignorance to defeat limitation. Because duty was not paid on a manufactur ing activity and material facts were concealed, the extended period of limitation was upheld and duty, interest, and penalty were sustained for the earlier period. For the later period, the assessee had filed an undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-CE for job-work galvanization, so it could not deny liability by asserting that the job worker alone was responsible. The demand and connected penalty were sustained. en-us Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 07:57:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370387 Galvanization was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 73 from 1 April 2003, and the note was held to be in the public domain, so the assessee could not claim bona fide ignorance to defeat limitation. Because duty was not paid on a manufactur ing activity and material facts were concealed, the extended period of limitation was upheld and duty, interest, and penalty were sustained for the earlier period. For the later period, the assessee had filed an undertaking under Notification No. 214/86-CE for job-work galvanization, so it could not deny liability by asserting that the job worker alone was responsible. The demand and connected penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370387