https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=593 The appellants' claims for provisional assessment of duty for the period April to December 2003 were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of Appeal No. E/1128/2005. However, in Appeal No. E/1129/2005 and Appeal No. E/5/2006, challenges against duty demands and refund claim rejections were acknowledged. The judgments emphasized the provisional nature of assessments, the need for re-quantification based on correct depot prices, set-off of demands against refund claims, and the importance of allowing the assessee to submit all relevant depot invoices. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing a fresh decision with a fair opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. en-us Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=593 The appellants' claims for provisional assessment of duty for the period April to December 2003 were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of Appeal No. E/1128/2005. However, in Appeal No. E/1129/2005 and Appeal No. E/5/2006, challenges against duty demands and refund claim rejections were acknowledged. The judgments emphasized the provisional nature of assessments, the need for re-quantification based on correct depot prices, set-off of demands against refund claims, and the importance of allowing the assessee to submit all relevant depot invoices. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing a fresh decision with a fair opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=593