https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354785 Notification No. 67/95-CE was held applicable to goods captively consumed for further manufacture, and ownership of the molasses used in job work was not a prescribed condition for the exemption. The denial of captive consumption benefit solely because the assessee was not the owner of the molasses was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, a demand raised beyond the normal period could not be sustained because the Revenue did not establish suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent to evade duty, so the extended period was inapplicable. The impugned order was consequently found unsustainable on both merits and limitation. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:08:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354785 Notification No. 67/95-CE was held applicable to goods captively consumed for further manufacture, and ownership of the molasses used in job work was not a prescribed condition for the exemption. The denial of captive consumption benefit solely because the assessee was not the owner of the molasses was therefore unsustainable. On limitation, a demand raised beyond the normal period could not be sustained because the Revenue did not establish suppression, misstatement, or mala fide intent to evade duty, so the extended period was inapplicable. The impugned order was consequently found unsustainable on both merits and limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354785