https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259499 The Supreme Court held that the difference between the cost of moulds and dies paid by the appellant and the amount recovered from Tata Motors was not subject to excise duty as there was no physical removal of the goods by the appellant. The use of moulds and dies in manufacturing the final products did not constitute a deemed removal subject to duty. The absence of undervaluation allegations further supported the appellant's position. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the difference in cost was not exigible to excise duty. en-us Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 07:02:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259499 The Supreme Court held that the difference between the cost of moulds and dies paid by the appellant and the amount recovered from Tata Motors was not subject to excise duty as there was no physical removal of the goods by the appellant. The use of moulds and dies in manufacturing the final products did not constitute a deemed removal subject to duty. The absence of undervaluation allegations further supported the appellant's position. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the difference in cost was not exigible to excise duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259499