https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344152 The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, faced allegations of underpayment of duty on rejected slag cleared. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped proceedings, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals), who confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to drop proceedings was based on a verification report showing the rejected material as waste. The Committee of Commissioners upheld this decision, emphasizing the waste nature of the rejected material in the manufacturing process. The appellant's appeal was allowed, overturning the Commissioner(Appeals) decision and favoring the appellant by restoring the Adjudicating Authority's order. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344152 The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, faced allegations of underpayment of duty on rejected slag cleared. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped proceedings, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals), who confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to drop proceedings was based on a verification report showing the rejected material as waste. The Committee of Commissioners upheld this decision, emphasizing the waste nature of the rejected material in the manufacturing process. The appellant's appeal was allowed, overturning the Commissioner(Appeals) decision and favoring the appellant by restoring the Adjudicating Authority's order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344152