https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128269 The appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the original authority was rejected. The Commissioner found that the respondent was engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel products under the compounded levy scheme and there was no evidence to support the claim of clandestine production of alloy steel products. The Commissioner held that the demand for recovery of duty based on one invoice for alloy steel could not be upheld, as there was no proof that the respondents were capable of rolling alloy steel products. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:18:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128269 The appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the original authority was rejected. The Commissioner found that the respondent was engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel products under the compounded levy scheme and there was no evidence to support the claim of clandestine production of alloy steel products. The Commissioner held that the demand for recovery of duty based on one invoice for alloy steel could not be upheld, as there was no proof that the respondents were capable of rolling alloy steel products. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128269