https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53676 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a time-barred demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appeal against M/s. Paragon Fragrances was not maintainable due to the absence of a penalty enhancement prayer. The SSI Exemption dispute for shaving cream involved brand name assignment and conflicting decisions, leading to a referral to a Larger Bench. Respondents acted in good faith, believing in their eligibility for exemption, with no evidence of the brand name owner manufacturing the goods. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the respondents' eligibility for small-scale exemption. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53676 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a time-barred demand under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appeal against M/s. Paragon Fragrances was not maintainable due to the absence of a penalty enhancement prayer. The SSI Exemption dispute for shaving cream involved brand name assignment and conflicting decisions, leading to a referral to a Larger Bench. Respondents acted in good faith, believing in their eligibility for exemption, with no evidence of the brand name owner manufacturing the goods. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the respondents' eligibility for small-scale exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53676