https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374683 Conditional excise exemption under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. was unavailable where cast articles underwent drilling, welding, boring, gauging and similar processes to achieve required dimensions and functional specifications, rather than only the limited permitted treatments. The HC held that the Tribunal misread the evidence, ignored the adjudicating authority's factual findings, and wrongly treated the departmental record as insufficient. On that basis, the finding that the goods remained exempt was perverse, and the duty and penalty demand restored by the adjudicating authority was upheld. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374683 Conditional excise exemption under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. was unavailable where cast articles underwent drilling, welding, boring, gauging and similar processes to achieve required dimensions and functional specifications, rather than only the limited permitted treatments. The HC held that the Tribunal misread the evidence, ignored the adjudicating authority's factual findings, and wrongly treated the departmental record as insufficient. On that basis, the finding that the goods remained exempt was perverse, and the duty and penalty demand restored by the adjudicating authority was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374683