https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88432 The tribunal confirmed duty demand of Rs. 11,87,825.95 for under-declaration of value of Polyurethane Foam. Duty on royalty amounts collected from dealers was upheld due to evidence supporting brand name use. Evidence of fabrication work by dealers validated royalty agreement. Extra realization was apportioned towards prime material and waste. Duty on extra realization was to be charged at highest rates applicable. Penalties on the firm and directors were reduced, and the redemption fine on plant and machinery was lowered. Appeals allowed with reduced penalties and fines, and duty recalculated based on tribunal's findings. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:37:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88432 The tribunal confirmed duty demand of Rs. 11,87,825.95 for under-declaration of value of Polyurethane Foam. Duty on royalty amounts collected from dealers was upheld due to evidence supporting brand name use. Evidence of fabrication work by dealers validated royalty agreement. Extra realization was apportioned towards prime material and waste. Duty on extra realization was to be charged at highest rates applicable. Penalties on the firm and directors were reduced, and the redemption fine on plant and machinery was lowered. Appeals allowed with reduced penalties and fines, and duty recalculated based on tribunal's findings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88432