https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259330 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding duty liability for bulk pack clearances under Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's bonafide belief, supported by industry confusion and the Board's circular, was deemed credible. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of bonafide conduct and absence of malafide intent in excise duty matters, emphasizing that the extended period of limitation for demand under Section 11A does not apply when there is a genuine belief that goods are not excisable. The appeal was allowed due to the appellant's evident bonafides and lack of intent to evade revenue. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2015 07:48:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259330 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding duty liability for bulk pack clearances under Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's bonafide belief, supported by industry confusion and the Board's circular, was deemed credible. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of bonafide conduct and absence of malafide intent in excise duty matters, emphasizing that the extended period of limitation for demand under Section 11A does not apply when there is a genuine belief that goods are not excisable. The appeal was allowed due to the appellant's evident bonafides and lack of intent to evade revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259330