https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784009 The dominant issue was whether central excise duty demands could be sustained despite a Section 11C notification dated 12.02.2016 and an exemption notification dated 03.02.2014 covering the impugned goods for the relevant periods. The Tribunal held that the Section 11C notification specified a defined period for non-levy, and the exemption notification covered the period beyond it; consequently, no duty was leviable or payable for the entire disputed period. It rejected the appellate authority's reliance on an SC decision, noting official clarification that the SC had not adjudicated Section 11C exemption. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:05:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784009 The dominant issue was whether central excise duty demands could be sustained despite a Section 11C notification dated 12.02.2016 and an exemption notification dated 03.02.2014 covering the impugned goods for the relevant periods. The Tribunal held that the Section 11C notification specified a defined period for non-levy, and the exemption notification covered the period beyond it; consequently, no duty was leviable or payable for the entire disputed period. It rejected the appellate authority's reliance on an SC decision, noting official clarification that the SC had not adjudicated Section 11C exemption. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784009