https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50227 Re-shelling of roller shafts and fitting fresh juice guard rings was treated as repair or reconditioning, not manufacture, because no new commercially distinct product emerged; the excise demand on that basis therefore failed. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the record showed departmental awareness of the activity, earlier notices on the same issue, and a prior refund following appellate acceptance, so suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty could not be attributed. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the duty demand and impugned order were set aside. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:10:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50227 Re-shelling of roller shafts and fitting fresh juice guard rings was treated as repair or reconditioning, not manufacture, because no new commercially distinct product emerged; the excise demand on that basis therefore failed. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the record showed departmental awareness of the activity, earlier notices on the same issue, and a prior refund following appellate acceptance, so suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty could not be attributed. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the duty demand and impugned order were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50227