https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86565 Concessional central excise duty under Notification No. 129/65 was available for BENTOL captively consumed in the assessee's own plant where the product was used for the permitted purpose and the department had granted permission with knowledge of the material facts. The absence of a fresh bond and full Chapter X compliance was treated as a procedural lapse that did not justify denial of the substantive concession. The duty demand was also held unenforceable because it was raised beyond the applicable limitation period under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:13:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86565 Concessional central excise duty under Notification No. 129/65 was available for BENTOL captively consumed in the assessee's own plant where the product was used for the permitted purpose and the department had granted permission with knowledge of the material facts. The absence of a fresh bond and full Chapter X compliance was treated as a procedural lapse that did not justify denial of the substantive concession. The duty demand was also held unenforceable because it was raised beyond the applicable limitation period under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86565