https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437491 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues raised in the case. It found that the alternators manufactured at Unit I were not distinct excisable products until further processing at Unit II. The alternators were classified under CETH 8501. The appellant was not eligible for exemptions under a specific notification but was granted relief due to procedural issues. The assessable value was determined based on Unit I data. As the core issue of duty liability was decided in favor of the appellant, the extended period for issuing a show cause notice was deemed irrelevant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 May 2023 07:35:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437491 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on all issues raised in the case. It found that the alternators manufactured at Unit I were not distinct excisable products until further processing at Unit II. The alternators were classified under CETH 8501. The appellant was not eligible for exemptions under a specific notification but was granted relief due to procedural issues. The assessable value was determined based on Unit I data. As the core issue of duty liability was decided in favor of the appellant, the extended period for issuing a show cause notice was deemed irrelevant. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437491