https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115004 The Settlement Commission allowed the case to proceed under Section 32F(1), adjusting the amount already paid by the applicant against the admitted duty liability. The judgment emphasized the need for a full debate on the consumption of furnace oil during the final hearing and highlighted the importance of providing corroborative evidence. The decision ensured adherence to the legal procedures under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and underscored the significance of thorough discussions on contentious issues during the proceedings. en-us Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2012 18:37:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115004 The Settlement Commission allowed the case to proceed under Section 32F(1), adjusting the amount already paid by the applicant against the admitted duty liability. The judgment emphasized the need for a full debate on the consumption of furnace oil during the final hearing and highlighted the importance of providing corroborative evidence. The decision ensured adherence to the legal procedures under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and underscored the significance of thorough discussions on contentious issues during the proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115004