https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2580 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders. The appellant successfully argued that the differential demand by the Department was based on discrepancies in price lists, which were due to clerical errors. The Court emphasized that the duty was paid at the invoice price, with no extra amount collected from customers. The appellant's evidence, including statutory reports and certifications, supported their claim, leading to the dismissal of the Department's allegations of short levy of excise duty. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2580 The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders. The appellant successfully argued that the differential demand by the Department was based on discrepancies in price lists, which were due to clerical errors. The Court emphasized that the duty was paid at the invoice price, with no extra amount collected from customers. The appellant's evidence, including statutory reports and certifications, supported their claim, leading to the dismissal of the Department's allegations of short levy of excise duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2580