https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265769 Concessional central excise duty could not be denied on the basis of a security deposit scheme and alleged extra collections where the Tribunal found no evidence that the scheme was a device for indirect recovery of excess amounts or part of a contrary pricing arrangement. The Tribunal assessed the show cause notices, the relevant notifications, the wholesale buyer arrangements and witness statements, including retractions in cross-examination, and also relied on ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Supreme Court found no error of fact or law in that approach and upheld the Tribunal's classification and duty treatment, resulting in dismissal of the challenge. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265769 Concessional central excise duty could not be denied on the basis of a security deposit scheme and alleged extra collections where the Tribunal found no evidence that the scheme was a device for indirect recovery of excess amounts or part of a contrary pricing arrangement. The Tribunal assessed the show cause notices, the relevant notifications, the wholesale buyer arrangements and witness statements, including retractions in cross-examination, and also relied on ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Supreme Court found no error of fact or law in that approach and upheld the Tribunal's classification and duty treatment, resulting in dismissal of the challenge. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265769