https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3658 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of Perforated Nickel Screens under heading 8443.10, rejecting the Revenue's classification under heading 8443.90. The Tribunal also found the demand for duty to be barred by limitation due to the absence of malafide intent by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and rejected the Revenue's appeal against penalty and interest, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee on all counts. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3658 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of Perforated Nickel Screens under heading 8443.10, rejecting the Revenue's classification under heading 8443.90. The Tribunal also found the demand for duty to be barred by limitation due to the absence of malafide intent by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty and rejected the Revenue's appeal against penalty and interest, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee on all counts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3658