https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221161 The duty demand of Rs.13,77,261/- was confirmed against the applicants for not discharging duty liability correctly under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Despite following Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the applicants failed to pay duty based on the value of goods as required. The court found their duty calculation incorrect and directed them to pre-deposit 50% of the confirmed duty within eight weeks. Compliance would result in a waiver of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty, with recovery stayed during the appeal process. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with duty liabilities and transparent disclosures during goods clearance to avoid disputes. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221161 The duty demand of Rs.13,77,261/- was confirmed against the applicants for not discharging duty liability correctly under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. Despite following Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the applicants failed to pay duty based on the value of goods as required. The court found their duty calculation incorrect and directed them to pre-deposit 50% of the confirmed duty within eight weeks. Compliance would result in a waiver of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty, with recovery stayed during the appeal process. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with duty liabilities and transparent disclosures during goods clearance to avoid disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221161