https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314219 CESTAT Kolkata held that the demand was not time-barred because the goods had been declared as handicrafts without disclosing the manufacturing process, and the misdeclaration came to light only after inspection; the fact that duty had been paid suo motu as on dutiable goods also supported rejection of limitation. On exemption, the tribunal found that although some printing and embroidery were done by hand, the major part of the work was done by machine, so the goods did not satisfy the handicraft claim under the applicable test. The duty demand was therefore sustained and the appeal was rejected. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2024 18:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314219 CESTAT Kolkata held that the demand was not time-barred because the goods had been declared as handicrafts without disclosing the manufacturing process, and the misdeclaration came to light only after inspection; the fact that duty had been paid suo motu as on dutiable goods also supported rejection of limitation. On exemption, the tribunal found that although some printing and embroidery were done by hand, the major part of the work was done by machine, so the goods did not satisfy the handicraft claim under the applicable test. The duty demand was therefore sustained and the appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314219