https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91814 The appeal was rejected, confirming the duty demand for manufacturing and removing cosmetics under a related firm as per the Central Excise Act. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 due to abuse of exemption. The close monitoring of sales and marketing activities revealed interrelation between the manufacturing firm and the sole selling agent, with fictitious sales to manipulate sales and stay within exemption limits. The judgment highlighted the appellants' mala fide intentions and modus operandi, leading to the rejection of the appeal except for the penalty reduction. en-us Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:45:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91814 The appeal was rejected, confirming the duty demand for manufacturing and removing cosmetics under a related firm as per the Central Excise Act. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 due to abuse of exemption. The close monitoring of sales and marketing activities revealed interrelation between the manufacturing firm and the sole selling agent, with fictitious sales to manipulate sales and stay within exemption limits. The judgment highlighted the appellants' mala fide intentions and modus operandi, leading to the rejection of the appeal except for the penalty reduction. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91814