https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50206 The Tribunal held that the repairing/re-conditioning activities for old storage batteries did not amount to manufacturing attracting central excise duty. The demand of duty and personal penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside as the activities did not align with the definition of manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable due to the lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants. The appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation grounds. en-us Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:15:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50206 The Tribunal held that the repairing/re-conditioning activities for old storage batteries did not amount to manufacturing attracting central excise duty. The demand of duty and personal penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside as the activities did not align with the definition of manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the extended period of limitation was found inapplicable due to the lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellants. The appeal was allowed on both merits and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50206