https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344103 The appellant, a soap-based products manufacturer, faced duty demands due to clearing additional quantities as free supplies without payment. Quantity discounts were deemed not allowable for duty liability determination. A classification dispute led to a upheld duty demand based on a Supreme Court decision. Goods seized at dealers' premises were considered part of free supplies, resulting in the vacation of confiscation order. Duty demands based on alleged suppressed production were set aside due to lack of evidence. Unaccounted goods seized at the factory were justified, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalties. Specific directions were given for each issue, including upholding duty demands, classifying goods per Supreme Court decision, and setting aside duty demands and penalties. en-us Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344103 The appellant, a soap-based products manufacturer, faced duty demands due to clearing additional quantities as free supplies without payment. Quantity discounts were deemed not allowable for duty liability determination. A classification dispute led to a upheld duty demand based on a Supreme Court decision. Goods seized at dealers' premises were considered part of free supplies, resulting in the vacation of confiscation order. Duty demands based on alleged suppressed production were set aside due to lack of evidence. Unaccounted goods seized at the factory were justified, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalties. Specific directions were given for each issue, including upholding duty demands, classifying goods per Supreme Court decision, and setting aside duty demands and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344103