https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219248 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against setting aside the demand of Rs. 48,138 in the differential duty. The Tribunal agreed that since the confiscation of goods was unwarranted, the demand for the differential duty was not sustainable. The judgment emphasized the necessity of accurate factual findings and legal analysis in assessing duty liabilities related to seized goods. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219248 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against setting aside the demand of Rs. 48,138 in the differential duty. The Tribunal agreed that since the confiscation of goods was unwarranted, the demand for the differential duty was not sustainable. The judgment emphasized the necessity of accurate factual findings and legal analysis in assessing duty liabilities related to seized goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219248