https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337146 A show-cause notice that merely sought appropriation of duty already deposited, without specifically demanding the balance as duty, could not sustain confirmation of that balance demand. The defect in drafting was treated as fatal to the duty-demand portion because the amount was not clearly quantified and proposed as recoverable duty. By contrast, penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was upheld because that penalty mechanism does not depend on a prior duty demand; the relevant contraventions and evasion were not disputed. The result was partial relief to the assessee: the balance duty demand was set aside, but the penalty remained in force. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337146 A show-cause notice that merely sought appropriation of duty already deposited, without specifically demanding the balance as duty, could not sustain confirmation of that balance demand. The defect in drafting was treated as fatal to the duty-demand portion because the amount was not clearly quantified and proposed as recoverable duty. By contrast, penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was upheld because that penalty mechanism does not depend on a prior duty demand; the relevant contraventions and evasion were not disputed. The result was partial relief to the assessee: the balance duty demand was set aside, but the penalty remained in force. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337146