https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328830 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying cum-duty price benefit in the computation of demand for goods cleared through another unit. It held that the denial was erroneous as per Explanation-II to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing that the price charged should include excise duty. The Tribunal ruled that the assessable value should be determined after abating the duty element from the sale price. The decision highlighted the admissibility of cum-duty price benefit even in cases of goods removed clandestinely without duty payment, ultimately favoring the Appellant. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:47:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328830 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying cum-duty price benefit in the computation of demand for goods cleared through another unit. It held that the denial was erroneous as per Explanation-II to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing that the price charged should include excise duty. The Tribunal ruled that the assessable value should be determined after abating the duty element from the sale price. The decision highlighted the admissibility of cum-duty price benefit even in cases of goods removed clandestinely without duty payment, ultimately favoring the Appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328830