https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109234 The appellants successfully appealed against the adjudication order confirming a demand, as they were found to have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Revenue's allegation of suppression was refuted, with the appellants demonstrating regular declaration of goods cleared under the notification and providing supporting documents. The demand made in 2001 was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence showing the appellants' awareness of the loan suspension, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:41:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109234 The appellants successfully appealed against the adjudication order confirming a demand, as they were found to have wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Revenue's allegation of suppression was refuted, with the appellants demonstrating regular declaration of goods cleared under the notification and providing supporting documents. The demand made in 2001 was deemed time-barred due to lack of evidence showing the appellants' awareness of the loan suspension, resulting in the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109234