https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177035 The court held that the appellant was liable to pay additional excise duty on goods sold, emphasizing the importance of transaction value in determining excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose from the appellant's arguments. Additionally, the court upheld the lower courts' decision that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the difference in excise duty from the date of goods removal, concluding that the issue had been conclusively settled. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:13:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177035 The court held that the appellant was liable to pay additional excise duty on goods sold, emphasizing the importance of transaction value in determining excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose from the appellant's arguments. Additionally, the court upheld the lower courts' decision that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the difference in excise duty from the date of goods removal, concluding that the issue had been conclusively settled. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177035