https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93724 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 77/83 required fresh examination because the turnover basis used to deny the benefit was not clearly established on the record, so the exemption question was remanded for reconsideration. Confiscation of rods and sheets for non-accountal in RG 1 was sustained because the challenge was not supported by reliable technical or other evidence to show the goods were only unfinished materials. The penalty was set aside for the time being because it depended on the duty-liability issues that were also remanded, and could be reconsidered after those issues are finally decided. en-us Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:51:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93724 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 77/83 required fresh examination because the turnover basis used to deny the benefit was not clearly established on the record, so the exemption question was remanded for reconsideration. Confiscation of rods and sheets for non-accountal in RG 1 was sustained because the challenge was not supported by reliable technical or other evidence to show the goods were only unfinished materials. The penalty was set aside for the time being because it depended on the duty-liability issues that were also remanded, and could be reconsidered after those issues are finally decided. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93724