https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761803 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant could not claim concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 12/2012-CE for Gold Dore Bars having purity less than 95%. The tribunal distinguished between Gold Bar and Gold Dore Bar, noting that the notification specifically defined Gold Dore Bar as raw material for manufacturing gold bars. Since appellant's final product was Gold Dore Bar with 87-92% purity cleared to refineries, not Gold Bar, the exemption was denied. The tribunal rejected invoking extended limitation period as there was no suppression of facts, only interpretation of law. Appeal partially allowed - duty demand upheld for normal period but penalty set aside. Matter remanded for determination of differential duty and interest. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 13:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761803 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant could not claim concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 12/2012-CE for Gold Dore Bars having purity less than 95%. The tribunal distinguished between Gold Bar and Gold Dore Bar, noting that the notification specifically defined Gold Dore Bar as raw material for manufacturing gold bars. Since appellant's final product was Gold Dore Bar with 87-92% purity cleared to refineries, not Gold Bar, the exemption was denied. The tribunal rejected invoking extended limitation period as there was no suppression of facts, only interpretation of law. Appeal partially allowed - duty demand upheld for normal period but penalty set aside. Matter remanded for determination of differential duty and interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761803