https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43646 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the modification of phenolic formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, and melamine formaldehyde resins into moulding powders did not constitute manufacture subject to excise duty. The recovery of excise duty on these powders was deemed unconstitutional as it was paid under a mistaken belief supported by government circulars and judicial precedents. The court directed the authorities to process the refund claim without applying the limitation period under Section 11B and ordered a review of the claim within 12 weeks, ensuring no dismissal on grounds of limitation and denying any costs to either party. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:04:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43646 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the modification of phenolic formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, and melamine formaldehyde resins into moulding powders did not constitute manufacture subject to excise duty. The recovery of excise duty on these powders was deemed unconstitutional as it was paid under a mistaken belief supported by government circulars and judicial precedents. The court directed the authorities to process the refund claim without applying the limitation period under Section 11B and ordered a review of the claim within 12 weeks, ensuring no dismissal on grounds of limitation and denying any costs to either party. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43646