https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338362 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand, citing the exclusion of amortization cost in the final product value. Initially, the penalty under Section 11AC was confirmed but later dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a previous decision. The Revenue argued for penalty imposition regardless of payment timing, while the appellant stressed revenue neutrality and lack of intent to evade duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on penalty imposition, emphasizing the need to assess revenue neutrality and intent to evade duty based on relevant judgments. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:09:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338362 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand, citing the exclusion of amortization cost in the final product value. Initially, the penalty under Section 11AC was confirmed but later dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a previous decision. The Revenue argued for penalty imposition regardless of payment timing, while the appellant stressed revenue neutrality and lack of intent to evade duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on penalty imposition, emphasizing the need to assess revenue neutrality and intent to evade duty based on relevant judgments. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338362