https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353026 The appellant's claim for exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE for intermediate goods, specifically Ceramic Tiles, was initially denied by the lower authorities. However, upon review, it was found that the adjudicating authority failed to verify whether Ceramic Tiles were actually manufactured by the appellant. As no verification was conducted, and the appellant demonstrated that they did not manufacture Ceramic Tiles but other exempted Ceramic products, the demand for duty was deemed baseless. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper verification before denying exemptions in excise duty matters. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 19:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353026 The appellant's claim for exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE for intermediate goods, specifically Ceramic Tiles, was initially denied by the lower authorities. However, upon review, it was found that the adjudicating authority failed to verify whether Ceramic Tiles were actually manufactured by the appellant. As no verification was conducted, and the appellant demonstrated that they did not manufacture Ceramic Tiles but other exempted Ceramic products, the demand for duty was deemed baseless. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper verification before denying exemptions in excise duty matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353026