https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170418 Excise duty quantification was examined on the basis that the department had relied only on a Superintendent's endorsed calculation without disclosing the computation method or basis to the assessee; on that footing, the reduced duty demand was upheld as properly accepted by the appellate authority. Interest was treated as a statutory liability and could not be deleted merely on the reasoning adopted below, so the setting aside of interest was reversed. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also restored because the provision covered wrong availment, utilisation, and retention of credit contrary to law, and the appellate authority had not addressed that legal position. The demand therefore survived only to the extent of the reduced quantum, with interest and penalty reinstated. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2015 13:12:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170418 Excise duty quantification was examined on the basis that the department had relied only on a Superintendent's endorsed calculation without disclosing the computation method or basis to the assessee; on that footing, the reduced duty demand was upheld as properly accepted by the appellate authority. Interest was treated as a statutory liability and could not be deleted merely on the reasoning adopted below, so the setting aside of interest was reversed. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also restored because the provision covered wrong availment, utilisation, and retention of credit contrary to law, and the appellate authority had not addressed that legal position. The demand therefore survived only to the extent of the reduced quantum, with interest and penalty reinstated. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170418