https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760077 By-products cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were held eligible for concessional duty where the Letter of Permission covered them and the unit had fulfilled export obligations and positive net foreign exchange conditions, so benefit under Notification No. 23/2003-CE could not be denied merely because the goods were not identical to the exported products. The demand for the earlier period was also held time-barred because the clearances and concessional duty availment were disclosed in regular returns and departmental communications, with no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement shown to justify the extended limitation period. The employee's penalty under Rule 26 failed once the duty demand did not survive. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:38:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760077 By-products cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were held eligible for concessional duty where the Letter of Permission covered them and the unit had fulfilled export obligations and positive net foreign exchange conditions, so benefit under Notification No. 23/2003-CE could not be denied merely because the goods were not identical to the exported products. The demand for the earlier period was also held time-barred because the clearances and concessional duty availment were disclosed in regular returns and departmental communications, with no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement shown to justify the extended limitation period. The employee's penalty under Rule 26 failed once the duty demand did not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760077