https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334084 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals on 28.9.2016. The appellant, who had claimed the benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption Notification, was found to have remained below the threshold limit for duty liability despite intermittent payments, as established by relevant precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that sporadic duty payments did not signify opting out of the exemption, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not required to discharge the differential central excise duty demanded by the lower authorities. en-us Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:43:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334084 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals on 28.9.2016. The appellant, who had claimed the benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption Notification, was found to have remained below the threshold limit for duty liability despite intermittent payments, as established by relevant precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that sporadic duty payments did not signify opting out of the exemption, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not required to discharge the differential central excise duty demanded by the lower authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334084