https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52090 An exemption notification was construed strictly by its plain wording: texturised yarn made from filament yarn imported under the Duty Exemption Scheme qualified, but the same benefit was not extended to texturised yarn produced from indigenously procured filament yarn obtained under an advance release order. The claimed exemption therefore failed. On limitation, mere incorrect claim of exemption is not enough to establish suppression, but the absence of substantiated disclosure that the filament yarn was of indigenous origin was treated as a material non-disclosure. The extended period of limitation was accordingly upheld. en-us Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:41:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52090 An exemption notification was construed strictly by its plain wording: texturised yarn made from filament yarn imported under the Duty Exemption Scheme qualified, but the same benefit was not extended to texturised yarn produced from indigenously procured filament yarn obtained under an advance release order. The claimed exemption therefore failed. On limitation, mere incorrect claim of exemption is not enough to establish suppression, but the absence of substantiated disclosure that the filament yarn was of indigenous origin was treated as a material non-disclosure. The extended period of limitation was accordingly upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52090