https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353165 The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the demand for the appellant to pay the differential duty amounting to &8377; 3,01,919. However, the penalty of &8377; 50,000 imposed on the appellant was dropped by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with procedural rules, presenting evidence, and adhering to duty payment regulations in excise cases. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Dec 2017 08:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353165 The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the demand for the appellant to pay the differential duty amounting to &8377; 3,01,919. However, the penalty of &8377; 50,000 imposed on the appellant was dropped by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the significance of complying with procedural rules, presenting evidence, and adhering to duty payment regulations in excise cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353165