https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423868 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent. It was determined that the respondent had followed the required procedures under Rule 57F(2) for reprocessing waste and scrap, thus no duty could be imposed. Additionally, the waste and scrap were deemed non-excisable, absolving the respondent of duty liability. The extended limitation period under Section 11A was found inapplicable due to the absence of willful misstatement or suppression. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, with the court ruling against them on substantial legal questions. en-us Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2023 16:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423868 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the respondent. It was determined that the respondent had followed the required procedures under Rule 57F(2) for reprocessing waste and scrap, thus no duty could be imposed. Additionally, the waste and scrap were deemed non-excisable, absolving the respondent of duty liability. The extended limitation period under Section 11A was found inapplicable due to the absence of willful misstatement or suppression. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, with the court ruling against them on substantial legal questions. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423868