https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1023 The tribunal found in favor of the appellants, concluding that they correctly discharged their duty liability under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Commissioner's orders were deemed lacking in merit, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The tribunal highlighted that demanding duty again at the original location would lead to double taxation, as the differential duty had already been paid at the sister units' jurisdictional Commissionerate. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1023 The tribunal found in favor of the appellants, concluding that they correctly discharged their duty liability under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The Commissioner's orders were deemed lacking in merit, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The tribunal highlighted that demanding duty again at the original location would lead to double taxation, as the differential duty had already been paid at the sister units' jurisdictional Commissionerate. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1023