https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190327 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the duty demand on the quantity of molasses transferred was not sustainable solely based on the undertaking filed at the time of registration. The duty liability could not be imposed solely on the basis of the undertaking, especially when the official liquidator's claim for remission of duty was rejected. The show cause notice issued prematurely before the rejection of the remission claim was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need to enforce duty demands in accordance with statutory rules and contractual obligations through the competent court. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:57:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190327 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the duty demand on the quantity of molasses transferred was not sustainable solely based on the undertaking filed at the time of registration. The duty liability could not be imposed solely on the basis of the undertaking, especially when the official liquidator's claim for remission of duty was rejected. The show cause notice issued prematurely before the rejection of the remission claim was deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need to enforce duty demands in accordance with statutory rules and contractual obligations through the competent court. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190327