https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117457 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for excise duty was time-barred due to the issuance of the demand notice beyond the standard limitation period, given the conflicting judicial views on excisability. It upheld the imposition of a redemption fine and duty on seized goods, as no separate demand notice was required. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty on the appellant, recognizing the genuine doubt regarding excisability and the appellant's bona fide belief. The decision underscores the necessity for timely demands and consistency in excise duty matters amidst conflicting judicial interpretations. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117457 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for excise duty was time-barred due to the issuance of the demand notice beyond the standard limitation period, given the conflicting judicial views on excisability. It upheld the imposition of a redemption fine and duty on seized goods, as no separate demand notice was required. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty on the appellant, recognizing the genuine doubt regarding excisability and the appellant's bona fide belief. The decision underscores the necessity for timely demands and consistency in excise duty matters amidst conflicting judicial interpretations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117457