https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78331 The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the company and the ex-director, setting aside the impugned order that reclassified goods under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13. The duty demand and penalties imposed were overturned due to the lack of substantial evidence, misinterpretation of the tariff heading, and failure to conduct sample testing over a three-year period. The Tribunal found the products were not suitable for use in spark ignition engines as claimed, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellants. en-us Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78331 The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the company and the ex-director, setting aside the impugned order that reclassified goods under CETH 2710.11 and 2710.13. The duty demand and penalties imposed were overturned due to the lack of substantial evidence, misinterpretation of the tariff heading, and failure to conduct sample testing over a three-year period. The Tribunal found the products were not suitable for use in spark ignition engines as claimed, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78331