https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116023 The appellate court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the duty shortfall on inputs should be recovered from the manufacturer rather than penalizing the buyer who met all notification requirements for deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97. The court relied on established legal precedents to interpret the notification's conditions, stating that once a certificate confirming duty payment was provided, the exact amount paid need not be scrutinized by the buyer. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the notification's stipulations and ensuring manufacturers fulfill duty obligations to prevent unfair penalties on compliant buyers. en-us Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116023 The appellate court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the duty shortfall on inputs should be recovered from the manufacturer rather than penalizing the buyer who met all notification requirements for deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97. The court relied on established legal precedents to interpret the notification's conditions, stating that once a certificate confirming duty payment was provided, the exact amount paid need not be scrutinized by the buyer. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the notification's stipulations and ensuring manufacturers fulfill duty obligations to prevent unfair penalties on compliant buyers. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116023