https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219531 At the stay stage, the Tribunal treated the dispute as one of quantification of demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules rather than a substantive liability issue. As the amount already deposited was considered sufficient for hearing the appeal, the appellant's challenge to the manner of valuing trading activity was relevant only for pre-deposit purposes. On that basis, further insistence on the remaining duty, interest and penalty deposit was found unnecessary, and waiver of the balance pre-deposit was granted. en-us Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219531 At the stay stage, the Tribunal treated the dispute as one of quantification of demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules rather than a substantive liability issue. As the amount already deposited was considered sufficient for hearing the appeal, the appellant's challenge to the manner of valuing trading activity was relevant only for pre-deposit purposes. On that basis, further insistence on the remaining duty, interest and penalty deposit was found unnecessary, and waiver of the balance pre-deposit was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219531