https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334558 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing branded refined edible oil, faced demands for Central Excise duty due to non-remittance and undervaluation. The appellant's claims for exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-CE and disputed valuation criteria were rejected due to discrepancies in tax liability arguments and lack of evidence. The appellant's inconsistent invoicing practices led to the rejection of their SSI exemption claim. The tribunal reduced the unjustified penalty amount imposed, emphasizing the need for proportional penalties. The duty recovery from the appellant was upheld, with the tribunal modifying the penalty while affirming the duty recovery decision. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334558 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing branded refined edible oil, faced demands for Central Excise duty due to non-remittance and undervaluation. The appellant's claims for exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-CE and disputed valuation criteria were rejected due to discrepancies in tax liability arguments and lack of evidence. The appellant's inconsistent invoicing practices led to the rejection of their SSI exemption claim. The tribunal reduced the unjustified penalty amount imposed, emphasizing the need for proportional penalties. The duty recovery from the appellant was upheld, with the tribunal modifying the penalty while affirming the duty recovery decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334558