https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92119 CESTAT partially allowed the appeals. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's late-raised plea disputing location in notified areas and held Units A and B were within the notification; however, because the exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE is optional and effective only from the date opted, the Tribunal confirmed central excise demands for Unit A for 1.08.2009-14.03.2010 and for Unit B for 1.07.2009-29.03.2010 (with applicable interest), disallowing the imposition of the optional notification retroactively. Penalties under s.11AC were not sustainable for Units A and B for lack of fraud, collusion or willful suppression, and Rule 26 penalty against Manufacturer C was held unsustainable for want of allegations of confiscation or fictitious invoicing. Appeals allowed in part. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92119 CESTAT partially allowed the appeals. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's late-raised plea disputing location in notified areas and held Units A and B were within the notification; however, because the exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE is optional and effective only from the date opted, the Tribunal confirmed central excise demands for Unit A for 1.08.2009-14.03.2010 and for Unit B for 1.07.2009-29.03.2010 (with applicable interest), disallowing the imposition of the optional notification retroactively. Penalties under s.11AC were not sustainable for Units A and B for lack of fraud, collusion or willful suppression, and Rule 26 penalty against Manufacturer C was held unsustainable for want of allegations of confiscation or fictitious invoicing. Appeals allowed in part. Highlights Central Excise Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92119