https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122462 The Settlement Commission allowed cum-duty reworking to the extent excise duty was embedded in the recovered price, but rejected any deduction for unproved sales tax liability. It treated the Section 11D component as overlapping with the clandestine-clearance demand under Section 11A and avoided double recovery by dropping the duplicated element. On the evidence, the Commission restricted the clandestine-clearance demand, rejected the density-based demand for want of proof, and confined the grade-substitution/under-valuation demand to the amount supported by the record. It granted settlement relief by extending immunity from confiscation, penalty and prosecution, while preserving limited interest liability. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:04:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122462 The Settlement Commission allowed cum-duty reworking to the extent excise duty was embedded in the recovered price, but rejected any deduction for unproved sales tax liability. It treated the Section 11D component as overlapping with the clandestine-clearance demand under Section 11A and avoided double recovery by dropping the duplicated element. On the evidence, the Commission restricted the clandestine-clearance demand, rejected the density-based demand for want of proof, and confined the grade-substitution/under-valuation demand to the amount supported by the record. It granted settlement relief by extending immunity from confiscation, penalty and prosecution, while preserving limited interest liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122462