https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362168 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 40/95-CE depended on a factual determination of whether the process applied to the goods fell within the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently found that the Deputy Chief Chemist had not tested the samples and had relied only on the Revenue's letter and available literature. Accepting those concurrent findings, the HC held that no substantial question of law arose for appellate interference. The assessee's entitlement to the exemption was left undisturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362168 Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 40/95-CE depended on a factual determination of whether the process applied to the goods fell within the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently found that the Deputy Chief Chemist had not tested the samples and had relied only on the Revenue's letter and available literature. Accepting those concurrent findings, the HC held that no substantial question of law arose for appellate interference. The assessee's entitlement to the exemption was left undisturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362168