https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377993 The case involved the classification of products as "Fly Ash Bricks" for central excise duty assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's decision that the appellants were liable for duty as they sold bricks labeled as "Fly Ash Bricks" containing more than 48% fly ash, contradicting their claim of producing ESP dust bricks. The extended limitation period under Section 11A was invoked due to alleged suppression of material facts, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals for lack of merit. The denial of cross-examination opportunity was deemed unwarranted as the decision was not reliant on the chemical examiner's report but on the appellants' own admissions. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 06:58:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377993 The case involved the classification of products as "Fly Ash Bricks" for central excise duty assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's decision that the appellants were liable for duty as they sold bricks labeled as "Fly Ash Bricks" containing more than 48% fly ash, contradicting their claim of producing ESP dust bricks. The extended limitation period under Section 11A was invoked due to alleged suppression of material facts, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals for lack of merit. The denial of cross-examination opportunity was deemed unwarranted as the decision was not reliant on the chemical examiner's report but on the appellants' own admissions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377993