https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387329 Meal components supplied to airlines in trays, bowls and pouches were not, on these facts, branded edible preparations manufactured at the supplier's end, because the airline assembled them only for onboard service and the brand label was kept in a separate cutlery pouch. The classification adopted by Revenue was therefore not justified, and the demand failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the dispute involved legal interpretation, with no evidence of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The duty demand and penalty were set aside, with consequential relief as permissible in law. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387329 Meal components supplied to airlines in trays, bowls and pouches were not, on these facts, branded edible preparations manufactured at the supplier's end, because the airline assembled them only for onboard service and the brand label was kept in a separate cutlery pouch. The classification adopted by Revenue was therefore not justified, and the demand failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the dispute involved legal interpretation, with no evidence of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The duty demand and penalty were set aside, with consequential relief as permissible in law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387329