https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201902 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, ruling that they and MRO TEK did not have a mutual business interest and that the extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked by the Commissioner for demanding differential duty. The Tribunal found that the appellants' production and transactions were independent despite certain assistance from MRO TEK, and the duty paid exceeded the payable amount, indicating no duty evasion. As a result, the Revenue failed to establish grounds for invoking the extended period, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants on both issues. en-us Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201902 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, ruling that they and MRO TEK did not have a mutual business interest and that the extended limitation period was incorrectly invoked by the Commissioner for demanding differential duty. The Tribunal found that the appellants' production and transactions were independent despite certain assistance from MRO TEK, and the duty paid exceeded the payable amount, indicating no duty evasion. As a result, the Revenue failed to establish grounds for invoking the extended period, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants on both issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201902