https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291421 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a manufacturing company, in a case involving the interpretation of Notification No. 8/2004-C.E. The petitioner sought to remove capital investment equipment from their factory premises after the expiration of the ten-year period specified in the notification. The Excise Department had refused citing pending revenue disputes. The Court held that the Department lacked authority under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to prevent the petitioner from removing the equipment. The Court directed the Department not to prohibit the petitioner from removing the properties, ultimately disposing of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 19:52:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291421 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a manufacturing company, in a case involving the interpretation of Notification No. 8/2004-C.E. The petitioner sought to remove capital investment equipment from their factory premises after the expiration of the ten-year period specified in the notification. The Excise Department had refused citing pending revenue disputes. The Court held that the Department lacked authority under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to prevent the petitioner from removing the equipment. The Court directed the Department not to prohibit the petitioner from removing the properties, ultimately disposing of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291421