https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43346 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the Department did not establish the suppression of material facts or evasion of excise duty by the petitioners in manufacturing goods through sub-contractors. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the Department's assumption that all goods manufactured through sub-contractors should be considered the petitioners' manufacture. Additionally, the court found that the show-cause notice lacked specific details and failed to meet the requirements for invoking the extended period of limitation. As a result, the court quashed the show-cause notice and allowed further adjudication proceedings to proceed. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43346 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the Department did not establish the suppression of material facts or evasion of excise duty by the petitioners in manufacturing goods through sub-contractors. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the Department's assumption that all goods manufactured through sub-contractors should be considered the petitioners' manufacture. Additionally, the court found that the show-cause notice lacked specific details and failed to meet the requirements for invoking the extended period of limitation. As a result, the court quashed the show-cause notice and allowed further adjudication proceedings to proceed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43346