https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213729 Exemption under the notification was considered in relation to a product containing Niacinamide, where the ingredient was found to be present below the recommended prophylactic dose. The Tribunal relied on the earlier adjudication for the same period and noted that a prior order dropping similar proceedings had not been reviewed or disturbed. As the Revenue did not controvert the factual finding recorded in the impugned order, there was no basis to deny the exemption. The assessee's relief was therefore sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2015 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213729 Exemption under the notification was considered in relation to a product containing Niacinamide, where the ingredient was found to be present below the recommended prophylactic dose. The Tribunal relied on the earlier adjudication for the same period and noted that a prior order dropping similar proceedings had not been reviewed or disturbed. As the Revenue did not controvert the factual finding recorded in the impugned order, there was no basis to deny the exemption. The assessee's relief was therefore sustained and the Revenue's challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213729