https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122521 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision confirming duty liability on the gallery component. The Tribunal held that the failure to challenge the order of fixation of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) did not preclude the appellants from claiming the benefit of excluding gallery length, citing a decision from the Mumbai High Court. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:11:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122521 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision confirming duty liability on the gallery component. The Tribunal held that the failure to challenge the order of fixation of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) did not preclude the appellants from claiming the benefit of excluding gallery length, citing a decision from the Mumbai High Court. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122521