https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255842 An appeal challenging a duty-demand order was treated as maintainable because the impugned communication was a merits-based determination of liability, not a mere administrative intimation. In a capacity-based monthly duty regime, closure of the factory for part of the month did not justify denial of abatement or imposition of additional duty for the closed period where duty had already been paid for the actual working days. Any delay-related consequence was confined to interest, and once interest was discharged, no further duty demand survived for the period of closure. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:37:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255842 An appeal challenging a duty-demand order was treated as maintainable because the impugned communication was a merits-based determination of liability, not a mere administrative intimation. In a capacity-based monthly duty regime, closure of the factory for part of the month did not justify denial of abatement or imposition of additional duty for the closed period where duty had already been paid for the actual working days. Any delay-related consequence was confined to interest, and once interest was discharged, no further duty demand survived for the period of closure. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255842