https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182024 The judgment confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants for excess clearance of finished goods to M/s. HPCL. Despite the appellants' arguments and concerns regarding duty payment discrepancies and lack of cross-examination, the court upheld the demand based on the evidence presented. The appellants' admission of the quantity discrepancy without retraction was pivotal in the decision. The judgment stressed the importance of accurate duty payment in accordance with the actual quantity supplied, ultimately dismissing the appeals and reinforcing the duty demand based on factual evidence and the appellants' admission. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:23:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182024 The judgment confirmed the demand of duty against the appellants for excess clearance of finished goods to M/s. HPCL. Despite the appellants' arguments and concerns regarding duty payment discrepancies and lack of cross-examination, the court upheld the demand based on the evidence presented. The appellants' admission of the quantity discrepancy without retraction was pivotal in the decision. The judgment stressed the importance of accurate duty payment in accordance with the actual quantity supplied, ultimately dismissing the appeals and reinforcing the duty demand based on factual evidence and the appellants' admission. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182024