https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88679 A shortage of clinker procured under Chapter X Procedure did not, by itself, justify differential central excise duty where Rule 194 required separate storage and accounting but not physical segregation in manufacture, and the assessee maintained that the clinker was used in production with duty paid at a lower rate by mistake; the duty demand was set aside because the differential liability had already been deposited. The penalty was nevertheless sustained, as the short payment was substantial, came to light only on departmental detection, and was not found disproportionate on the facts. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88679 A shortage of clinker procured under Chapter X Procedure did not, by itself, justify differential central excise duty where Rule 194 required separate storage and accounting but not physical segregation in manufacture, and the assessee maintained that the clinker was used in production with duty paid at a lower rate by mistake; the duty demand was set aside because the differential liability had already been deposited. The penalty was nevertheless sustained, as the short payment was substantial, came to light only on departmental detection, and was not found disproportionate on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88679