https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256311 The judgment addressed the appeal against the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested an Order-in-Original that confirmed a duty demand of a specific amount for a defined period, along with interest and an equal penalty. An amount already deposited by the appellants was also appropriated. The denial of 67% abatement due to free supplies not being included in the gross amount charged was deemed unsustainable based on a CESTAT Larger Bench judgment. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication, considering the appellants' eligibility for abatement under relevant notifications. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256311 The judgment addressed the appeal against the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested an Order-in-Original that confirmed a duty demand of a specific amount for a defined period, along with interest and an equal penalty. An amount already deposited by the appellants was also appropriated. The denial of 67% abatement due to free supplies not being included in the gross amount charged was deemed unsustainable based on a CESTAT Larger Bench judgment. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication, considering the appellants' eligibility for abatement under relevant notifications. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256311