https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117577 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their activities were not excisable as they involved civil works, not supplying construction elements. The valuation method used by the Commissioner was deemed incorrect as it did not relate to the cost of items manufactured. The demand raised beyond the normal period was rejected due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. Penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside as the manufacturing activity was compliant with Central Excise regulations. The duty demand for the extended period was set aside, and the demand for the normal period was remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:13:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117577 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that their activities were not excisable as they involved civil works, not supplying construction elements. The valuation method used by the Commissioner was deemed incorrect as it did not relate to the cost of items manufactured. The demand raised beyond the normal period was rejected due to lack of evidence of intent to evade duty. Penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside as the manufacturing activity was compliant with Central Excise regulations. The duty demand for the extended period was set aside, and the demand for the normal period was remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117577