https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354650 Notification No. 67/95-CE could not be denied for captive consumption merely because the assessee was not the owner of the molasses used in further manufacture, since the exemption imposed no ownership condition. The limitation issue was also resolved in favour of the assessee: the extended period was unavailable because the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. On that basis, the demand for the relevant period was held time-barred and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354650 Notification No. 67/95-CE could not be denied for captive consumption merely because the assessee was not the owner of the molasses used in further manufacture, since the exemption imposed no ownership condition. The limitation issue was also resolved in favour of the assessee: the extended period was unavailable because the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. On that basis, the demand for the relevant period was held time-barred and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354650