https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76309 Instant tea powder was treated as a variety of tea under the Tea Act, so cess was leviable on it; the 100% EOU exemption for excise duty could not be expanded to cover cess levied under a different statute, and export policy or departmental clarification did not create a statutory exemption. The demand for the period covered by the show cause notice dated 2 March 2001 was time-barred because an earlier notice had already been issued on the same cause of action, though later-month demands in the continuing proceedings were not barred. Penalty was not justified because the dispute arose from interpretation of the levy and exemption provisions without intent to evade. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76309 Instant tea powder was treated as a variety of tea under the Tea Act, so cess was leviable on it; the 100% EOU exemption for excise duty could not be expanded to cover cess levied under a different statute, and export policy or departmental clarification did not create a statutory exemption. The demand for the period covered by the show cause notice dated 2 March 2001 was time-barred because an earlier notice had already been issued on the same cause of action, though later-month demands in the continuing proceedings were not barred. Penalty was not justified because the dispute arose from interpretation of the levy and exemption provisions without intent to evade. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76309