https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270402 The appellant, a partnership firm, was denied benefits under the Compounded Levy Scheme due to their proprietary interest in another manufacturing facility. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they had not concealed any vital information and that the extended time period for demand of duty and penalty was not applicable. The Tribunal also found that the partnership deed was not a device to avoid tax and that the allegations of not exclusively using a Hot Air Stenter were not sufficiently proven. The show-cause notice issued after 4 years was deemed unjustified as no new facts or information had emerged. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:55:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270402 The appellant, a partnership firm, was denied benefits under the Compounded Levy Scheme due to their proprietary interest in another manufacturing facility. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they had not concealed any vital information and that the extended time period for demand of duty and penalty was not applicable. The Tribunal also found that the partnership deed was not a device to avoid tax and that the allegations of not exclusively using a Hot Air Stenter were not sufficiently proven. The show-cause notice issued after 4 years was deemed unjustified as no new facts or information had emerged. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270402