https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354786 The Tribunal upheld the demand confirmation against the appellant for Rs. 40.30 lakhs, invoking the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts. The appellant's reliance on a bonafide belief regarding small-scale exemption notification eligibility was rejected. Failure to disclose manufacturing goods with others' brand names led to the extended limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized transparency in brand name disclosure for excise duty purposes. While rejecting the limitation plea, the Tribunal allowed re-quantification of demand with penalty reduction based on cum-duty benefit, aligning with previous legal precedents and notification interpretation. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:08:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354786 The Tribunal upheld the demand confirmation against the appellant for Rs. 40.30 lakhs, invoking the extended period of limitation due to suppression of facts. The appellant's reliance on a bonafide belief regarding small-scale exemption notification eligibility was rejected. Failure to disclose manufacturing goods with others' brand names led to the extended limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized transparency in brand name disclosure for excise duty purposes. While rejecting the limitation plea, the Tribunal allowed re-quantification of demand with penalty reduction based on cum-duty benefit, aligning with previous legal precedents and notification interpretation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354786