https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95747 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law. The decision was based on the lack of evidence showing plastic coating on glass fibers, leading to the conclusion that the compounds did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The Tribunal highlighted procedural flaws in the review process and found that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the review grounds without proper notice to the appellants. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:43:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95747 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law. The decision was based on the lack of evidence showing plastic coating on glass fibers, leading to the conclusion that the compounds did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 52/86. The Tribunal highlighted procedural flaws in the review process and found that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the review grounds without proper notice to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95747