https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175181 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting exemptions under relevant notifications for the products in question, setting aside duty demands and penalties imposed on the appellants, including DCPL, Mr. N.J. Danani, and Mr. Herman Pinto. The Tribunal found that DCPL qualified for the exemptions, was not a dummy of BBL, and had not suppressed any facts. Consequently, penalties were deemed unjustified, and proper computation of duty demanded was not necessary as duty demands were not upheld. en-us Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2015 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175181 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting exemptions under relevant notifications for the products in question, setting aside duty demands and penalties imposed on the appellants, including DCPL, Mr. N.J. Danani, and Mr. Herman Pinto. The Tribunal found that DCPL qualified for the exemptions, was not a dummy of BBL, and had not suppressed any facts. Consequently, penalties were deemed unjustified, and proper computation of duty demanded was not necessary as duty demands were not upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175181