https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85271 The appellant successfully challenged the penalty and duty imposed for charging dry batteries at depots, arguing that duty was only payable upon factory clearance, not for subsequent operations. The allegation of suppressing facts was disputed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence. Section 11A for demanding duty beyond the standard period was invoked but rejected, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The characterization of post-charged batteries was not addressed as the appeal was allowed based on the limitation issue. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting duty demand post-clearance, ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:20:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85271 The appellant successfully challenged the penalty and duty imposed for charging dry batteries at depots, arguing that duty was only payable upon factory clearance, not for subsequent operations. The allegation of suppressing facts was disputed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant due to insufficient evidence. Section 11A for demanding duty beyond the standard period was invoked but rejected, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The characterization of post-charged batteries was not addressed as the appeal was allowed based on the limitation issue. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting duty demand post-clearance, ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85271