https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335313 The appellant successfully contested a differential duty demand for the period 13.11.1990 to 31.03.1991, arguing against the inclusion of various elements in the duty liability calculation. The Tribunal acknowledged errors in not considering the appellant's claim for exemption under notification 53/88-CE for goods manufactured under chapter 39. It was established that the appellant's tanks were made from raw materials falling under chapter 39, warranting exclusion of their value from the clearances calculation. Additionally, the Tribunal disagreed with the inclusion of job work and trading activity value in the total clearances value, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335313 The appellant successfully contested a differential duty demand for the period 13.11.1990 to 31.03.1991, arguing against the inclusion of various elements in the duty liability calculation. The Tribunal acknowledged errors in not considering the appellant's claim for exemption under notification 53/88-CE for goods manufactured under chapter 39. It was established that the appellant's tanks were made from raw materials falling under chapter 39, warranting exclusion of their value from the clearances calculation. Additionally, the Tribunal disagreed with the inclusion of job work and trading activity value in the total clearances value, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335313