https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443290 The judgment affirmed the appellant's engagement in manufacturing activities under the Central Excise Act 1944, despite non-payment of Excise Duty and payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's argument on the limitation of time for the demand notice, emphasizing the liability to pay Excise duty. The goods were deemed marketable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. A reduced personal penalty of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed on the Managing Director for negligence in service tax payment, with the appeal ultimately being dismissed based on manufacturing activity findings and payment discrepancies. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443290 The judgment affirmed the appellant's engagement in manufacturing activities under the Central Excise Act 1944, despite non-payment of Excise Duty and payment of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the appellant's argument on the limitation of time for the demand notice, emphasizing the liability to pay Excise duty. The goods were deemed marketable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. A reduced personal penalty of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed on the Managing Director for negligence in service tax payment, with the appeal ultimately being dismissed based on manufacturing activity findings and payment discrepancies. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443290