https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85822 Where clearances were made on the basis of a revised price list pending approval, and that revised price list was later approved, the basis for any differential duty demand ceased to exist, so no differential duty was recoverable. Although there was a technical breach of the price-list procedure under Rule 173C(2)(vi) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the circumstances did not justify penal action, so the penalty was not sustainable. The overall demand and penalty therefore could not be maintained. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:18:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85822 Where clearances were made on the basis of a revised price list pending approval, and that revised price list was later approved, the basis for any differential duty demand ceased to exist, so no differential duty was recoverable. Although there was a technical breach of the price-list procedure under Rule 173C(2)(vi) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the circumstances did not justify penal action, so the penalty was not sustainable. The overall demand and penalty therefore could not be maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85822