https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118864 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fusible interlining cloth on a job work basis, challenged the demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest imposed by the Commissioner. Despite previous inquiries and an order ruling the goods non-excisable, new demands were made for the period April 1998 to March 2001. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the change in proprietorship, consistent procedures, and lack of evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement, deeming the duty demand barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalty and interest were also deemed unjustified. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118864 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fusible interlining cloth on a job work basis, challenged the demand for excise duty, penalty, and interest imposed by the Commissioner. Despite previous inquiries and an order ruling the goods non-excisable, new demands were made for the period April 1998 to March 2001. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the change in proprietorship, consistent procedures, and lack of evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement, deeming the duty demand barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalty and interest were also deemed unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118864