https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266413 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order of 2006 that confirmed duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited, stating that proceedings initiated before the omission of relevant sections without conclusion would lapse. Citing the Gujarat High Court judgment in Krishna Processors vs. UOI, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudication order post-omission in 2001 was unsustainable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and precedents. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266413 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order of 2006 that confirmed duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Alwar Processors Pvt. Limited, stating that proceedings initiated before the omission of relevant sections without conclusion would lapse. Citing the Gujarat High Court judgment in Krishna Processors vs. UOI, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudication order post-omission in 2001 was unsustainable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on established legal principles and precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266413