https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398523 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s IOCL, concluding they were not obligated to deposit the alleged excess duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the duty was not collected separately on ethanol and was not shown distinctly in the invoices. Additionally, it was determined that the blending process, whether deemed manufacture or not, did not warrant the demand under Section 11D. The appeal succeeded on its merits, rendering other issues such as jurisdiction and limitation moot. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 15:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398523 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s IOCL, concluding they were not obligated to deposit the alleged excess duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the duty was not collected separately on ethanol and was not shown distinctly in the invoices. Additionally, it was determined that the blending process, whether deemed manufacture or not, did not warrant the demand under Section 11D. The appeal succeeded on its merits, rendering other issues such as jurisdiction and limitation moot. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398523