https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337002 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the interpretation of judicial precedents, particularly regarding the omission of Rule 96ZP and related provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's liability for Central Excise duty could not be upheld due to the omission of the relevant rule, leading to the quashing of the adjudication orders. The importance of legal precedents in interpreting and applying tax laws in excise duty matters was highlighted in the decision. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 08:57:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337002 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the interpretation of judicial precedents, particularly regarding the omission of Rule 96ZP and related provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's liability for Central Excise duty could not be upheld due to the omission of the relevant rule, leading to the quashing of the adjudication orders. The importance of legal precedents in interpreting and applying tax laws in excise duty matters was highlighted in the decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337002