https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330736 The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner to decide the liability of the appellant for the differential duty, calculate interest liability, and address the issue of penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized the benefit of cenvat credit if the appellant was held liable as a manufacturer, potentially reducing duty liability significantly. It highlighted conflicting decisions on interest liability but ultimately upheld it, declaring majority decisions as binding law. The Tribunal set aside the previous order, directing a fresh decision based on the considerations outlined. en-us Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:37:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330736 The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner to decide the liability of the appellant for the differential duty, calculate interest liability, and address the issue of penalty imposition. The Tribunal emphasized the benefit of cenvat credit if the appellant was held liable as a manufacturer, potentially reducing duty liability significantly. It highlighted conflicting decisions on interest liability but ultimately upheld it, declaring majority decisions as binding law. The Tribunal set aside the previous order, directing a fresh decision based on the considerations outlined. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330736