https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44225 Tufted fabric was found, on examination of the sample and concurrent factual findings, to be furnishing fabric rather than merely embroidered fabric, so it attracted central excise duty. The authorities treated tufting as a distinct manufacturing process and upheld duty liability on that basis. On limitation, the record did not support any bona fide belief that the goods were exempt embroidered fabric, so Rule 9(2) applied and Rule 10 did not bar recovery. The appeal therefore failed, and the duty demand and rejection of the limitation plea were sustained. en-us Tue, 16 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:54:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44225 Tufted fabric was found, on examination of the sample and concurrent factual findings, to be furnishing fabric rather than merely embroidered fabric, so it attracted central excise duty. The authorities treated tufting as a distinct manufacturing process and upheld duty liability on that basis. On limitation, the record did not support any bona fide belief that the goods were exempt embroidered fabric, so Rule 9(2) applied and Rule 10 did not bar recovery. The appeal therefore failed, and the duty demand and rejection of the limitation plea were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44225