https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217120 The Tribunal directed the appellant to resubmit a properly executed Vakalatnama within a week. Repeated adjournments were deemed prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, leading to the Tribunal proceeding with the hearing. The appellant argued that combining toothpaste and a toothbrush did not amount to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The appellant sought area-based exemption benefit and claimed not to be a manufacturer. The Tribunal highlighted the need for compliance with exemption notification requirements and directed a substantial pre-deposit of Rs. 8 crores, nearly 50% of the duty demand, for the appeal's pendency. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217120 The Tribunal directed the appellant to resubmit a properly executed Vakalatnama within a week. Repeated adjournments were deemed prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, leading to the Tribunal proceeding with the hearing. The appellant argued that combining toothpaste and a toothbrush did not amount to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The appellant sought area-based exemption benefit and claimed not to be a manufacturer. The Tribunal highlighted the need for compliance with exemption notification requirements and directed a substantial pre-deposit of Rs. 8 crores, nearly 50% of the duty demand, for the appeal's pendency. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217120