https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242791 The appellants, engaged in urea manufacturing, successfully argued against a differential demand for duty and penalty for the period from March to July 2011. The issue revolved around the applicability of Notifications No. 1/2011 and 2/2011, offering different duty rates based on input tax credit availed. The appellants demonstrated that the services for which credit was claimed in March 2011 were not related to urea production under Notification No. 1/2011. As a result, the pre-deposit condition was waived, and the stay petitions were granted unconditionally. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:27:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242791 The appellants, engaged in urea manufacturing, successfully argued against a differential demand for duty and penalty for the period from March to July 2011. The issue revolved around the applicability of Notifications No. 1/2011 and 2/2011, offering different duty rates based on input tax credit availed. The appellants demonstrated that the services for which credit was claimed in March 2011 were not related to urea production under Notification No. 1/2011. As a result, the pre-deposit condition was waived, and the stay petitions were granted unconditionally. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242791