https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379016 The commentary explains that Revenue's appeals against two noticees were infructuous because the impugned order related only to M/s. Interscape, leaving no live controversy or specific grounds against the other parties. It also notes that the central excise demand against M/s. Interscape did not survive because the Commissioner found the extended limitation period unavailable and no part of the demand remained within normal limitation. The dispute further concerned the excisability of furniture during the relevant period and the effect of the later Supreme Court ruling on exemption for handicrafts under Notification No. 76/86 dated 10/02/1986. The departmental challenge therefore failed in full. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:18:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379016 The commentary explains that Revenue's appeals against two noticees were infructuous because the impugned order related only to M/s. Interscape, leaving no live controversy or specific grounds against the other parties. It also notes that the central excise demand against M/s. Interscape did not survive because the Commissioner found the extended limitation period unavailable and no part of the demand remained within normal limitation. The dispute further concerned the excisability of furniture during the relevant period and the effect of the later Supreme Court ruling on exemption for handicrafts under Notification No. 76/86 dated 10/02/1986. The departmental challenge therefore failed in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379016