https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95076 Concurrent findings that the appellant was the manufacturer were upheld because it had availed Modvat credit and followed central excise procedures, which was treated as inconsistent with its denial of manufacturer status. On that basis, the Tribunal sustained the short-levy demand on the assessable value, including the alleged omitted profit element for the relevant period. It also refused to waive the pre-deposit under Section 35F, holding that there was no justification to dispense with the required deposit, and directed a partial pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal within the time fixed. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:02:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95076 Concurrent findings that the appellant was the manufacturer were upheld because it had availed Modvat credit and followed central excise procedures, which was treated as inconsistent with its denial of manufacturer status. On that basis, the Tribunal sustained the short-levy demand on the assessable value, including the alleged omitted profit element for the relevant period. It also refused to waive the pre-deposit under Section 35F, holding that there was no justification to dispense with the required deposit, and directed a partial pre-deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal within the time fixed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95076