https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268600 The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty for the normal period of limitation, directed re-quantification of the demand, rejected the Revenue's appeal, and disposed of the Assessee's appeal accordingly. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts by the Assessee and accepted the plea that duty paid on branded goods exceeded the duty demanded, neutralizing the demand. The Assessee's eligibility for exemption benefit in respect of goods bearing the brand name of the loan licensee due to the factory's rural location was upheld, and the demand for the extended period of limitation was not sustained. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:09:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268600 The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty for the normal period of limitation, directed re-quantification of the demand, rejected the Revenue's appeal, and disposed of the Assessee's appeal accordingly. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts by the Assessee and accepted the plea that duty paid on branded goods exceeded the duty demanded, neutralizing the demand. The Assessee's eligibility for exemption benefit in respect of goods bearing the brand name of the loan licensee due to the factory's rural location was upheld, and the demand for the extended period of limitation was not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268600