https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784561 Exemption under Sl. No. 333 of N/N 12/2012-CE for traction motors was held available only where the goods are used within the factory of production or another factory of the same manufacturer in manufacturing goods under headings 8601-8606; since the motors were removed outside the appellant's factory, the claim that different railway zones constituted the appellant's factories was rejected and, absent proof of post-clearance use, central excise duty liability was upheld. Invocation of the extended limitation period failed because the demand was based on details disclosed in ER-1/ER-6 returns without suppression; accordingly, the time-barred portion was set aside. Penalty under s. 11AC was also quashed for want of suppression with intent to evade. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784561 Exemption under Sl. No. 333 of N/N 12/2012-CE for traction motors was held available only where the goods are used within the factory of production or another factory of the same manufacturer in manufacturing goods under headings 8601-8606; since the motors were removed outside the appellant's factory, the claim that different railway zones constituted the appellant's factories was rejected and, absent proof of post-clearance use, central excise duty liability was upheld. Invocation of the extended limitation period failed because the demand was based on details disclosed in ER-1/ER-6 returns without suppression; accordingly, the time-barred portion was set aside. Penalty under s. 11AC was also quashed for want of suppression with intent to evade. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784561