https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206492 Exemption under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. was denied because eligibility had to be tested strictly against the notification's explanatory definition of manufacture of yarn, and the appellants' process did not satisfy that condition. The Tribunal treated the prior authorities cited by the appellants as factually distinguishable. Penalty under Rule 25 was deleted because the dispute was essentially interpretational and there was no independent material showing suppression, mala fide intent, or conscious evasion. Interest on the confirmed duty demand was held payable as a statutory consequence once the duty liability was upheld. en-us Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206492 Exemption under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. was denied because eligibility had to be tested strictly against the notification's explanatory definition of manufacture of yarn, and the appellants' process did not satisfy that condition. The Tribunal treated the prior authorities cited by the appellants as factually distinguishable. Penalty under Rule 25 was deleted because the dispute was essentially interpretational and there was no independent material showing suppression, mala fide intent, or conscious evasion. Interest on the confirmed duty demand was held payable as a statutory consequence once the duty liability was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206492