https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176731 The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for Notification 23/2003 benefit as the applicant failed to prove goods were manufactured from indigenously procured material. The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument regarding the applicability of Notification 30/2004-CE to 100% EOUs due to lack of evidence. Despite a duty rate calculation error raised by the applicant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 2 crores within six weeks, withholding recovery on the remaining amount. The absence of production records and proof of indigenously procured material led to the Tribunal upholding the duty demand. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176731 The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for Notification 23/2003 benefit as the applicant failed to prove goods were manufactured from indigenously procured material. The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument regarding the applicability of Notification 30/2004-CE to 100% EOUs due to lack of evidence. Despite a duty rate calculation error raised by the applicant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 2 crores within six weeks, withholding recovery on the remaining amount. The absence of production records and proof of indigenously procured material led to the Tribunal upholding the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176731