https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341356 The appeal was allowed on 28-10-2016, setting aside the time-barred demand for a differential duty on goods processed by the appellant. The decision emphasized compliance with record-keeping and procedural requirements, concluding that the demand was not sustainable due to the absence of suppression or fraud, without delving into the merits of the manufacturing process itself. en-us Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:04:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341356 The appeal was allowed on 28-10-2016, setting aside the time-barred demand for a differential duty on goods processed by the appellant. The decision emphasized compliance with record-keeping and procedural requirements, concluding that the demand was not sustainable due to the absence of suppression or fraud, without delving into the merits of the manufacturing process itself. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341356