https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202741 The Tribunal affirmed the earlier decision classifying the disputed product SHARKOFERROL and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for quantifying duty demand within the limitation period, applying the cum-duty-price benefit. The Commissioner's quantification was accepted, and attempts by the appellant's advocate to re-argue the issue on merit were rejected. The Tribunal held that the matter had been conclusively settled, and the appeal was dismissed. Additionally, a miscellaneous application for the production of certain documents was denied as the issues had already been decided in prior litigation. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202741 The Tribunal affirmed the earlier decision classifying the disputed product SHARKOFERROL and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for quantifying duty demand within the limitation period, applying the cum-duty-price benefit. The Commissioner's quantification was accepted, and attempts by the appellant's advocate to re-argue the issue on merit were rejected. The Tribunal held that the matter had been conclusively settled, and the appeal was dismissed. Additionally, a miscellaneous application for the production of certain documents was denied as the issues had already been decided in prior litigation. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202741