https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271442 The case involved a dispute over the demand of a higher central excise duty for cement cleared during a specific period. The appellant contested the demand, stating they were unaware of the quality differential and had a rate contract specifying a lower fineness. The court emphasized the lack of evidence showing the appellant received extra payment for higher quality cement, leading to the rejection of the duty demand. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to quality and pricing regulations under the Cement Control Order in assessing duty liabilities. en-us Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271442 The case involved a dispute over the demand of a higher central excise duty for cement cleared during a specific period. The appellant contested the demand, stating they were unaware of the quality differential and had a rate contract specifying a lower fineness. The court emphasized the lack of evidence showing the appellant received extra payment for higher quality cement, leading to the rejection of the duty demand. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to quality and pricing regulations under the Cement Control Order in assessing duty liabilities. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271442