https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44676 The dominant issue was whether excise exemption under Notification No. 167/86 for fireworks under Heading 3604.10 was unavailable because certain processes were allegedly carried out with the aid of power outside the factory through outsiders. The SC held that the demand could not be sustained, since the foundational finding that key operations (grinding of chemicals and manufacture of paper tubes/cones) were power-driven outside the premises was not legally tenable in light of the appellate authority's setting aside of the Assistant Collector's order. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, the duty demand was quashed, the amount deposited was directed to be refunded with 12% interest, and the bank guarantee stood discharged. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44676 The dominant issue was whether excise exemption under Notification No. 167/86 for fireworks under Heading 3604.10 was unavailable because certain processes were allegedly carried out with the aid of power outside the factory through outsiders. The SC held that the demand could not be sustained, since the foundational finding that key operations (grinding of chemicals and manufacture of paper tubes/cones) were power-driven outside the premises was not legally tenable in light of the appellate authority's setting aside of the Assistant Collector's order. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, the duty demand was quashed, the amount deposited was directed to be refunded with 12% interest, and the bank guarantee stood discharged. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44676