https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353951 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE depended on whether the product answered the description of refined edible oil, because goods other than refined edible oil were eligible for nil duty while refined edible oil attracted duty. The Department sought to deny exemption, but it produced no chemical test report or other reliable evidence establishing that the product met the standards of refined edible oil. In the absence of such proof, the demand was treated as resting on presumption and assumption, and the notice could not be sustained. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the demand was held not maintainable. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353951 Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE depended on whether the product answered the description of refined edible oil, because goods other than refined edible oil were eligible for nil duty while refined edible oil attracted duty. The Department sought to deny exemption, but it produced no chemical test report or other reliable evidence establishing that the product met the standards of refined edible oil. In the absence of such proof, the demand was treated as resting on presumption and assumption, and the notice could not be sustained. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the demand was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353951