https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180863 Demand raised for non-payment of duty under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was treated as unsustainable, as the Tribunal followed its earlier batch decision and the supporting High Court rulings on the same issue. The text notes that the appellant's own earlier appeals had already been allowed on identical reasoning, and the impugned order was therefore not required to be sustained. The demand was set aside and consequential relief, if any, was granted. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2016 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180863 Demand raised for non-payment of duty under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was treated as unsustainable, as the Tribunal followed its earlier batch decision and the supporting High Court rulings on the same issue. The text notes that the appellant's own earlier appeals had already been allowed on identical reasoning, and the impugned order was therefore not required to be sustained. The demand was set aside and consequential relief, if any, was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180863