https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347935 The case involved a dispute over excise duty demand on the clearance of scrap by appellants engaged in manufacturing. The Revenue appealed against a dropped portion of the demand, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that unclear details on the type of scrap made it challenging to determine dutiability. The Member (Judicial) upheld a demand of &8377; 1,23,189 as legal but noted the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to extend the 25% penalty option as required by law. The penalty was reduced to 25% in line with Supreme Court precedent, contingent on timely payment of duty, interest, and penalty. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:46:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347935 The case involved a dispute over excise duty demand on the clearance of scrap by appellants engaged in manufacturing. The Revenue appealed against a dropped portion of the demand, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that unclear details on the type of scrap made it challenging to determine dutiability. The Member (Judicial) upheld a demand of &8377; 1,23,189 as legal but noted the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to extend the 25% penalty option as required by law. The penalty was reduced to 25% in line with Supreme Court precedent, contingent on timely payment of duty, interest, and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347935