https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353882 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the extended period of limitation for demanding Central Excise duty was not applicable due to lack of evidence of misinterpretation or concealment. It was held that excise duty should be charged on the cost of products, not the MRP, and that the show cause notice for the normal period was not maintainable as the appellants were compliant with registration and duty payment requirements. Penalties were upheld but reduced for certain individuals, and the demand for duty on certain food items was dropped. The appeals were allowed, and consequential benefits were granted to the appellants. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353882 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the extended period of limitation for demanding Central Excise duty was not applicable due to lack of evidence of misinterpretation or concealment. It was held that excise duty should be charged on the cost of products, not the MRP, and that the show cause notice for the normal period was not maintainable as the appellants were compliant with registration and duty payment requirements. Penalties were upheld but reduced for certain individuals, and the demand for duty on certain food items was dropped. The appeals were allowed, and consequential benefits were granted to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353882