https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334384 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty for more than one year and the penalty under Section 11AC due to the absence of suppression of fact or mis-declaration by the appellant regarding the classification of the products. The Tribunal found that despite the differences in product names, the nature of the products remained the same, and the Department was aware of this fact, leading to the conclusion that there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. en-us Sun, 26 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334384 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty for more than one year and the penalty under Section 11AC due to the absence of suppression of fact or mis-declaration by the appellant regarding the classification of the products. The Tribunal found that despite the differences in product names, the nature of the products remained the same, and the Department was aware of this fact, leading to the conclusion that there was no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 26 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334384