https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247166 The court quashed the decision requiring a 25% pre-deposit of demand duty, citing the availability of writ jurisdiction for substantial questions of law despite alternative statutory remedies. It found that disparity in electricity consumption alone is insufficient to establish duty evasion without corroborative evidence of suppressed production. The court criticized the reliance on a disputed expert report and lack of consideration for other evidence. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a rational application of judicial discretion. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247166 The court quashed the decision requiring a 25% pre-deposit of demand duty, citing the availability of writ jurisdiction for substantial questions of law despite alternative statutory remedies. It found that disparity in electricity consumption alone is insufficient to establish duty evasion without corroborative evidence of suppressed production. The court criticized the reliance on a disputed expert report and lack of consideration for other evidence. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reevaluation, emphasizing the need for a rational application of judicial discretion. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247166