https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107984 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. It held that the misclassification of the final product was not proven, and there was no suppression of facts or misstatement by the appellant. The Tribunal also found that the demand for duty beyond the six-month period from the show cause notice was barred by limitation, citing the inapplicability of certain sections of the Finance Act, 2000. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:11:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107984 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. It held that the misclassification of the final product was not proven, and there was no suppression of facts or misstatement by the appellant. The Tribunal also found that the demand for duty beyond the six-month period from the show cause notice was barred by limitation, citing the inapplicability of certain sections of the Finance Act, 2000. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107984