https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208645 The Tribunal held that the demand against the appellant, a dealer not a manufacturer, for Excise duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not sustainable as they were not the manufacturer of the goods. The retrospective amendment to Section 11D did not apply to the relevant period. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the order on the liability issue. The appeal was deemed not maintainable under Section 35-L(b) of the Act and was dismissed without costs. en-us Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208645 The Tribunal held that the demand against the appellant, a dealer not a manufacturer, for Excise duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was not sustainable as they were not the manufacturer of the goods. The retrospective amendment to Section 11D did not apply to the relevant period. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the order on the liability issue. The appeal was deemed not maintainable under Section 35-L(b) of the Act and was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208645