https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351999 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand imposed on the appellant under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was determined that the processes carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, as evidenced by the lack of proof of additional processes like galvanizing and redrawing. The Tribunal found that there was a suppression of facts by the appellant regarding the short payment of duty, leading to the sustained demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings of non-manufacture processes and factual suppression by the appellant. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Dec 2017 07:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351999 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand imposed on the appellant under Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was determined that the processes carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, as evidenced by the lack of proof of additional processes like galvanizing and redrawing. The Tribunal found that there was a suppression of facts by the appellant regarding the short payment of duty, leading to the sustained demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings of non-manufacture processes and factual suppression by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351999