https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153845 The case involved a challenge to an order demanding excise duty and penalty under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The dispute centered on issues such as the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notice, lack of independent evidence supporting allegations of excess production, and the calculation of duty liability under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. Ultimately, the court upheld the application of the Section 3 proviso for duty calculation, rejected the financial hardship argument due to factory takeover, and granted a partial stay for a specific duty amount pending appeal. Compliance was required by a specified deadline. en-us Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:13:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153845 The case involved a challenge to an order demanding excise duty and penalty under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The dispute centered on issues such as the invocation of the extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notice, lack of independent evidence supporting allegations of excess production, and the calculation of duty liability under the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act. Ultimately, the court upheld the application of the Section 3 proviso for duty calculation, rejected the financial hardship argument due to factory takeover, and granted a partial stay for a specific duty amount pending appeal. Compliance was required by a specified deadline. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153845