https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47861 A duty demand that included a period covered by an applicable exemption notification was found infirm to that limited extent. The High Court declined to reopen the entire excise dispute or undertake fresh fact-finding, but held that the demand relatable to 27 March 1987 to 31 August 1987 required reconsideration because that period fell within Notification No. 101 of 1987. The Tribunal's order was therefore interfered with only partially, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration on that narrow question. The plea of limitation was not examined on merits because it had not been specifically pleaded before the authorities below. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:38:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47861 A duty demand that included a period covered by an applicable exemption notification was found infirm to that limited extent. The High Court declined to reopen the entire excise dispute or undertake fresh fact-finding, but held that the demand relatable to 27 March 1987 to 31 August 1987 required reconsideration because that period fell within Notification No. 101 of 1987. The Tribunal's order was therefore interfered with only partially, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration on that narrow question. The plea of limitation was not examined on merits because it had not been specifically pleaded before the authorities below. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47861