https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50132 Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was denied because the assessee failed to show that the old and used scrap inputs purchased from kabaris and auction sources had already suffered central excise duty at some prior stage. The Tribunal held that the scrap's character as re-rollable material did not by itself prove duty-paid status, and the department's evidence of non-duty-paid inputs remained unrebutted. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the classification list and intimations did not disclose the specific nature and duty status of the inputs, and that omission was treated as suppression of material facts. The appeal therefore failed on both exemption eligibility and limitation. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:28:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50132 Exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. was denied because the assessee failed to show that the old and used scrap inputs purchased from kabaris and auction sources had already suffered central excise duty at some prior stage. The Tribunal held that the scrap's character as re-rollable material did not by itself prove duty-paid status, and the department's evidence of non-duty-paid inputs remained unrebutted. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the classification list and intimations did not disclose the specific nature and duty status of the inputs, and that omission was treated as suppression of material facts. The appeal therefore failed on both exemption eligibility and limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50132