https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344429 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE on molasses used in the manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol. It was found that there was no suppression or mis-declaration of facts by the appellants, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the demand notice for duty. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period for the demand notice issued in 2000 was deemed unsustainable due to the absence of suppression or mis-declaration of facts by the appellants. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. en-us Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:05:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344429 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE on molasses used in the manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol. It was found that there was no suppression or mis-declaration of facts by the appellants, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the demand notice for duty. Additionally, the invocation of the extended period for the demand notice issued in 2000 was deemed unsustainable due to the absence of suppression or mis-declaration of facts by the appellants. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344429