https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447993 Spectacle lenses cleared into the domestic tariff area were considered under the exemption framework for export-oriented units, and the earlier Supreme Court view that lenses do not lose their character as spectacle lenses merely because they require further prescription finishing was applied to Notification No. 6/2006-CE. For the later regime under Notification No. 1/2011-CE, the changed notification structure and tariff position required separate examination, so the subsequent period could not be decided on the same basis. On limitation, the later notice could not be treated as wholly time-barred without determining whether part of the demand fell within the normal period. The demand up to 31 March 2011 was set aside, and the remaining demand was remanded for fresh decision. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:18:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447993 Spectacle lenses cleared into the domestic tariff area were considered under the exemption framework for export-oriented units, and the earlier Supreme Court view that lenses do not lose their character as spectacle lenses merely because they require further prescription finishing was applied to Notification No. 6/2006-CE. For the later regime under Notification No. 1/2011-CE, the changed notification structure and tariff position required separate examination, so the subsequent period could not be decided on the same basis. On limitation, the later notice could not be treated as wholly time-barred without determining whether part of the demand fell within the normal period. The demand up to 31 March 2011 was set aside, and the remaining demand was remanded for fresh decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447993