https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221164 The tribunal held that the Commissioner(Appeals) erred in extending the benefit of the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 11A to all connected persons. The orders allowing the appeals of respondents were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration to independently assess the role of each respondent and the applicability of Rule 26. The Revenue's appeals were allowed on the grounds that the legislative intent did not intend to grant immunity to all connected persons upon payment by the main manufacturer. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2013 15:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221164 The tribunal held that the Commissioner(Appeals) erred in extending the benefit of the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 11A to all connected persons. The orders allowing the appeals of respondents were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration to independently assess the role of each respondent and the applicability of Rule 26. The Revenue's appeals were allowed on the grounds that the legislative intent did not intend to grant immunity to all connected persons upon payment by the main manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221164