https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356910 The tribunal held that the appellant's activities of quality testing, branding, and packing did not constitute manufacturing as the goods purchased were already complete. It was determined that the appellant, as the owner of the CONA brand, was eligible for SSI exemption. The demand for the period 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2006 was found to be time-barred, and penalties were not applicable due to lack of suppression of facts or mala fide intention. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant on both merit and limitation grounds. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2019 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356910 The tribunal held that the appellant's activities of quality testing, branding, and packing did not constitute manufacturing as the goods purchased were already complete. It was determined that the appellant, as the owner of the CONA brand, was eligible for SSI exemption. The demand for the period 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2006 was found to be time-barred, and penalties were not applicable due to lack of suppression of facts or mala fide intention. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant on both merit and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356910