https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109565 The Tribunal partially allowed Appeal 67/03 and fully allowed Appeals 75 and 76/03, rejecting duty demand and penalties for the extended period. The decision focused on classifying "Odonil" as a room deodorant under Heading 38.08, not a moth repellent under Heading 33.07, emphasizing the product's packaging and labeling. Penalties imposed on the assessee and employees were deemed unjustified due to the approved classification change after thorough examination, leading to the rejection of the extended period of limitation. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:50:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109565 The Tribunal partially allowed Appeal 67/03 and fully allowed Appeals 75 and 76/03, rejecting duty demand and penalties for the extended period. The decision focused on classifying "Odonil" as a room deodorant under Heading 38.08, not a moth repellent under Heading 33.07, emphasizing the product's packaging and labeling. Penalties imposed on the assessee and employees were deemed unjustified due to the approved classification change after thorough examination, leading to the rejection of the extended period of limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109565