https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331053 A prior remand required fresh quantification of central excise duty after considering limitation and re-examining amortised pattern charges, but the subsequent order did not fully comply, so the duty liability had to be reconsidered on the basis of departmental and assessee records. The penalty imposed under Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unsustainable because the earlier remand had already set aside penalty and interest. Modvat credit under Rule 57(Q) was upheld as admissible. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of duty, while the penalty was annulled and the credit entitlement confirmed. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331053 A prior remand required fresh quantification of central excise duty after considering limitation and re-examining amortised pattern charges, but the subsequent order did not fully comply, so the duty liability had to be reconsidered on the basis of departmental and assessee records. The penalty imposed under Rule 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was unsustainable because the earlier remand had already set aside penalty and interest. Modvat credit under Rule 57(Q) was upheld as admissible. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of duty, while the penalty was annulled and the credit entitlement confirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331053