https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210234 The appellate judge set aside the duty demand for the period of August 2006 to June 2007 as harsh and disproportionate, but upheld the demands for February and March 2007 due to default in payment. The case was remanded for further quantification of duty and penalty imposition, considering errors in Cenvat credit utilization and timely filing of returns. The appellant's appeal was disposed of with these decisions. en-us Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210234 The appellate judge set aside the duty demand for the period of August 2006 to June 2007 as harsh and disproportionate, but upheld the demands for February and March 2007 due to default in payment. The case was remanded for further quantification of duty and penalty imposition, considering errors in Cenvat credit utilization and timely filing of returns. The appellant's appeal was disposed of with these decisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210234