https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210892 The judge upheld the demand for August 2003 as the appellants had not fulfilled their duty liability, preventing them from using credit for September 2003. However, the judge dropped the demand for September 2003 due to the appellants' failure to prove receipt of goods on 30.09.2003. The appellants were permitted to utilize available credit for duty payment. The judge rejected the relevance of the cited case law and disposed of the appeal based on the specific facts and legal provisions. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210892 The judge upheld the demand for August 2003 as the appellants had not fulfilled their duty liability, preventing them from using credit for September 2003. However, the judge dropped the demand for September 2003 due to the appellants' failure to prove receipt of goods on 30.09.2003. The appellants were permitted to utilize available credit for duty payment. The judge rejected the relevance of the cited case law and disposed of the appeal based on the specific facts and legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210892