https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284338 The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand as the appellant did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 67/95 for captive consumption of Oxygen and Acetylene Gas for further manufacturing excisable goods. However, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was set aside as it was deemed inappropriate due to the non-removal of goods from the factory and the issue being primarily about the interpretation of the notification. The decision underscores the necessity of complying with notification conditions for captive consumption to avoid duty liabilities, although the penalty was not upheld in this case. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:12:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284338 The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand as the appellant did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 67/95 for captive consumption of Oxygen and Acetylene Gas for further manufacturing excisable goods. However, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was set aside as it was deemed inappropriate due to the non-removal of goods from the factory and the issue being primarily about the interpretation of the notification. The decision underscores the necessity of complying with notification conditions for captive consumption to avoid duty liabilities, although the penalty was not upheld in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284338