https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103630 The appeals were based on the confirmation of duty demands and penalties under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A(1). The main contention revolved around whether demisters and candle filters were movable and excisable items, with the appellants arguing they became part of an immovable chimney upon installation. The denial of exemption benefits under Notifications due to alleged brand name usage was also challenged, emphasizing the distinction between physical affixation and mere mention in invoices. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reevaluation, directing the Commissioner to reconsider excisability, brand name usage, and penalty imposition based on legal precedents and factual considerations presented by the appellants. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:52:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103630 The appeals were based on the confirmation of duty demands and penalties under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A(1). The main contention revolved around whether demisters and candle filters were movable and excisable items, with the appellants arguing they became part of an immovable chimney upon installation. The denial of exemption benefits under Notifications due to alleged brand name usage was also challenged, emphasizing the distinction between physical affixation and mere mention in invoices. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reevaluation, directing the Commissioner to reconsider excisability, brand name usage, and penalty imposition based on legal precedents and factual considerations presented by the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103630