https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255930 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that they were not liable to pay excise duty as they did not separately collect excise duty amounts but charged composite prices set by the NPPA. Relying on a previous case involving IOCL, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not meet the requirements of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay petition, waiving pre-deposit of dues and staying the recovery process during the appeal, as the appellant demonstrated a prima facie case for the stay. en-us Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255930 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that they were not liable to pay excise duty as they did not separately collect excise duty amounts but charged composite prices set by the NPPA. Relying on a previous case involving IOCL, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not meet the requirements of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay petition, waiving pre-deposit of dues and staying the recovery process during the appeal, as the appellant demonstrated a prima facie case for the stay. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255930