https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118667 The appeal was allowed as the court found the Ministry of Steel guidelines supporting the 10% burning loss claim valid, and the lack of evidence to disallow it. The Central Excise authorities' challenge based on a circular allowing scrutiny for losses over 1% was not upheld, especially as demands were audit-based without proper investigation. The appellant's subsequent reduction of burning loss to 7-8% post-2001 was also considered. Consequently, the demand for a differential duty amounting to Rs. 3,88,718.71 was deemed unsustainable. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:30:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118667 The appeal was allowed as the court found the Ministry of Steel guidelines supporting the 10% burning loss claim valid, and the lack of evidence to disallow it. The Central Excise authorities' challenge based on a circular allowing scrutiny for losses over 1% was not upheld, especially as demands were audit-based without proper investigation. The appellant's subsequent reduction of burning loss to 7-8% post-2001 was also considered. Consequently, the demand for a differential duty amounting to Rs. 3,88,718.71 was deemed unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118667